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=623868 --- Comment #13 from Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-07 23:06:16 EST --- 1) I want to thank Michael Gruber and Paul Flo Williams.. I have looked through the updated spec and src.rpm and want to +1 their work as package reviewers. 2) I am including the below just to make sure I have done a review myself correctly. + OK ? ISSUE - N/A W WARNING below + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. W License + License field in spec matches ? License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: 40785c6118f4891137a69fe31832dd64 Cantarell-Bold.sfd 5571bac0c11b2e0d042345d4847c7a06 Cantarell-BoldOblique.sfd 9f2607cb46af948d939e58a4ef289b17 Cantarell-Oblique.sfd 385cf2b29741381f41497521c6305a68 Cantarell-Regular.sfd - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. W No rpmlint output. Sent rpm through koji and ran the results through rpmlint rpmlint abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.* abattis-cantarell-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Crossland -> Cross land, Cross-land, Crossly abattis-cantarell-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license OFL 1.1+ abattis-cantarell-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation abattis-cantarell-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Crossland -> Cross land, Cross-land, Crossly abattis-cantarell-fonts.src: W: invalid-license OFL 1.1+ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. - final provides and requires are sane: $ rpm --requires -qp abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.noarch.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-3.fc15 $ rpm --requires -qp abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.src.rpm fontpackages-devel fontforge $ rpm --provides -qp abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.noarch.rpm config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-3.fc15 font(:lang=aa) font(:lang=af) font(:lang=an) font(:lang=ast) font(:lang=ay) font(:lang=bi) font(:lang=br) font(:lang=bs) font(:lang=ca) font(:lang=ch) font(:lang=co) font(:lang=crh) font(:lang=cs) font(:lang=csb) font(:lang=cy) font(:lang=da) font(:lang=de) font(:lang=en) font(:lang=eo) font(:lang=es) font(:lang=et) font(:lang=eu) font(:lang=fi) font(:lang=fil) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=fo) font(:lang=fr) font(:lang=fur) font(:lang=fy) font(:lang=ga) font(:lang=gd) font(:lang=gl) font(:lang=gv) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=hr) font(:lang=hsb) font(:lang=ht) font(:lang=hu) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=id) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=is) font(:lang=it) font(:lang=jv) font(:lang=ki) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=kl) font(:lang=ku-tr) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=la) font(:lang=lb) font(:lang=lg) font(:lang=li) font(:lang=lt) font(:lang=lv) font(:lang=mg) font(:lang=mh) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=mt) font(:lang=na) font(:lang=nb) font(:lang=nds) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nl) font(:lang=nn) font(:lang=no) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=nso) font(:lang=ny) font(:lang=oc) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=pap-an) font(:lang=pap-aw) font(:lang=pl) font(:lang=pt) font(:lang=rm) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sc) font(:lang=se) font(:lang=sg) font(:lang=sk) font(:lang=sl) font(:lang=sma) font(:lang=smj) font(:lang=smn) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=sq) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=su) font(:lang=sv) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=tk) font(:lang=tl) font(:lang=tn) font(:lang=tr) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=vo) font(:lang=vot) font(:lang=wa) font(:lang=wen) font(:lang=wo) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=yap) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(cantarell) abattis-cantarell-fonts = 1.001-3.fc15 SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs + Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version + check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. No GPLv3 is packaged in code. OPL 1.1 is mentioned but not which OPL (there are several) Looking at the source code there is no mention of the OPL I could find These files are made available under the GNU General Public License Version 3 or any later version, with an additional permission for embedding them in documents. Each source code file does mention the GPLv3 with font exception. -- 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