Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-fonts-hebrew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195585 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-19 15:24 EST ------- Package failes to build in mock on x86_64, both FC5 and development. The build fails at: cp: cannot stat `*.tfm': No such file or directory Indeed, there are no .tfm files in the current directory when that is run. This is due to failures in %build: + make ./mkCLMtfm.sh rm: cannot remove `culmus.map': No such file or directory afm2tfm: fatal: afm file `/usr/share/fonts/hebrew/AharoniCLM-Bold.afm' not found. afm2tfm: fatal: afm file `/usr/share/fonts/hebrew/AharoniCLM-Bold.afm' not found. ./mkCLMtfm.sh: line 47: vptovf: command not found ./mkCLMtfm.sh: line 48: vptovf: command not found (repeated for each font). I think you're missing a BuildRequires: tetex. tetex-afm does not pull it in. Adding it lets things build, although I then see a bunch of errors from mkCLMtfm.sh: ./mkCLMtfm.sh rm: cannot remove `culmus.map': No such file or directory afm2tfm: fatal: afm file `/usr/share/fonts/hebrew/AharoniCLM-Bold.afm' not found. afm2tfm: fatal: afm file `/usr/share/fonts/hebrew/AharoniCLM-Bold.afm' not found. afm2tfm: fatal: afm file `/usr/share/fonts/hebrew/AharoniCLM-BoldOblique.afm' not found. afm2tfm: fatal: afm file `/usr/share/fonts/hebrew/AharoniCLM-BoldOblique.afm' not found. (and so on for many files) I think this points to a missing BuildRequires: fonts-hebrew. I still get: ./mkCLMtfm.sh rm: cannot remove `culmus.map': No such file or directory and a bunch of "I had to round some hights by X units" but it looks like the package builds OK now. (It actually built OK but didn't contain any tfm files without the BR: fonts-hebrew; you might want to add some error-checking somewhere.) I am at a loss to see how this would build at all in mock as stated in a previous comment. Can you verify that you are the upstream for the source tarball? Generally your Source: tag includes a URL to the upstream source, but it's possible that for a package like this the package is the upstream source. I'm going to assume that there is no upstream source here. Once built, rpmlint has this to say: W: tetex-fonts-hebrew incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1 0.1-2.fc6 You don't seem to have added a changelog entry for what went into release 2. W: tetex-fonts-hebrew dangling-symlink /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/culmus /usr/share/fonts/hebrew W: tetex-fonts-hebrew dangling-symlink /usr/share/texmf/fonts/afm/public/culmus /usr/share/fonts/hebrew Symlinks into packages which are dependencies are OK. W: tetex-fonts-hebrew symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/culmus /usr/share/fonts/hebrew W: tetex-fonts-hebrew symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/texmf/fonts/afm/public/culmus /usr/share/fonts/hebrew Absolute symlinks aren't OK; these should be relative (a blocker). You have various scriptlets which call texhash and updmap-sys but you don't specify appropriate requirements for them: Requires(post): tetex (or /usr/bin/texhash) (updmap-sys comes from tetex-fonts which is a dependency of tetex; it should be OK to leave it out but you're free to be more explicit if you like) Requires(preun): tetex-fonts (or /usr/bin/updmap-sys) (the postun requirement on /usr/bin/texhash is picked up by rpm automatically) This package doesn't seem to own /usr/share/texmf/fonts/tfm/public/culmus and /usr/share/texmf/fonts/vf/public/culmus/, and nothing else in the repository seems to either. (/usr/share/texmf/fonts/tfm/public and /usr/share/texmf/fonts/vf/public are owned by tetex-fonts which is in the dependency tree). Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. O can't compare source against upstream as there is none. O can't compare version agains upstream. O BuildRequires are proper (one amended as above) * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint has valid complaints (see above). * final provides and requires are sane: tetex-fonts-hebrew = 0.1-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/texhash fonts-hebrew tetex * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite. X scriptlets present; dependencies are not correct. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review