Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483865 Charles R. Anderson <cra@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cra@xxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Charles R. Anderson <cra@xxxxxxx> 2009-02-03 21:57:13 EDT --- Initial review: >rpmlint bpg-fonts-20090203-1.fc11.src.rpm bpg-fonts.src: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Upstream source sha1sum matches: fb996423afac1f8a1091d907795115f98249cd7f BPG_GPL&GNU_Fonts.zip http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy + Fonts are in a single upstream archive. ? Multiple different families are in the same upstream archive. They share a release date, but the subpackages have different Versions. Additionally, as stated above, one of the font families has a different license. Can you check with upstream about splitting these into one-archive-per-family? It would probably be better to split at least the one non-GPL font into a different archive, and probably a different SRPM altogether. + Each family is in a separate subpackage. + naming follows projectname-fontfamilyname-fonts - SHOULD be built from sources, but font spec template says "For GPLed or LGPLed fonts this is required by the license." %build section is empty. Is TTF the preferred source for modifying/building these fonts? If not, where is the source? >rpmlint bpg-*.noarch.rpm bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-algeti.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-algeti.conf bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-chveulebrivi.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-chveulebrivi.conf bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-courier.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-courier.conf bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-courier-s.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-courier-s.conf bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-elite.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-elite.conf bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-fonts-common.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-glaho.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-glaho.conf bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-ingiri.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-ingiri.conf bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium-cond.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium-cond.conf bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium.conf bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans.conf bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-medium.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-medium.conf bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-sans-modern-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-sans-modern-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-modern.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-modern.conf bpg-sans-regular-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-sans-regular-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-regular.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-regular.conf bpg-sans-regular-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-serif-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-serif-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-serif.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-serif.conf bpg-serif-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-serif-modern-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-serif-modern-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-serif-modern.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-serif-modern.conf bpg-serif-modern-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions 16 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 45 warnings. Should the symlinks be relative, or is rpmlint being too pedantic here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review