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=652803 --- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-11-15 13:47:44 EST --- As a nitpick point, since the %{_font_pkg} macro only contains a %files section and %post and %postun sections, I would place the %{_font_pkg} macros where the %post, %postun and %files sections normally are, i.e. at the end. At least to me it is a bit confusing that they are in the middle of everything. Personally, I would also just cut'n'paste the common description to wherever it's needed, I don't think overusing macros is a good idea. rpmlint reports adf-gillius-2-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation adf-gillius-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_font_pkg adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Actually, here you see that one of the %{_font_pkg} macros has been picked up in the description. ** MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. ~OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - The font guidelines adhere to a different policy than normal Fedora guidelines. [I wonder why that exception isn't in the Naming Guidelines as for other types of packages?] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK 4939391ae6189a93d9d7d7f90a539f06 Gillius-Collection.zip 4939391ae6189a93d9d7d7f90a539f06 ../SOURCES/Gillius-Collection.zip MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK - Setting the permissions explicitly is a bit unconventional, normally we just use default permissions, that is (-,root,root) or (-,root,root,-). MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK *** To me the package looks good. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review