https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956134 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Review: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [?] rpmlint output: [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/mnmlicons-fonts.spec ./mnmlicons-fonts-1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/mnmlicons-fonts.spec: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Apr 24 2013 Alec Leamas <leamas@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.1-1 mnmlicons-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webfonts -> web fonts, web-fonts, webfoot mnmlicons-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://code.google.com/p/perkins-less/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> mnmlicons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Apr 24 2013 Alec Leamas <leamas@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.1-1 mnmlicons-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webfonts -> web fonts, web-fonts, webfoot mnmlicons-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webfonts -> web fonts, web-fonts, webfoot mnmlicons-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://code.google.com/p/perkins-less/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> mnmlicons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Apr 24 2013 Alec Leamas <leamas@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.1-1 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ The spec date needs to be corrected. I think it was a Wednesday ;) The spelling is a cosemtic change, can be made too. [+] License is acceptable (...) [asinha@localhost perkins]$ find . -name "*" -exec licensecheck '{}' \; | sed "/UNKNOWN/ d" ./stylesheets/perkins/mnmlicons/mnmliconsv21-webfont.svg: GENERATED FILE ./LICENSE: MIT/X11 (BSD like) [+] License field in spec is correct [+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [+] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues [asinha@localhost perkins]$ review-md5check.sh ../../SPECS/mnmlicons-fonts.spec Getting http://perkins-less.googlecode.com/files/perkins-1.1.zip to /tmp/review/perkins-1.1.zip % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 405k 100 405k 0 0 250k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 250k 445eeb9ca365769f2802997e5dae857a /tmp/review/perkins-1.1.zip 445eeb9ca365769f2802997e5dae857a /home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/perkins-1.1.zip removed ‘/tmp/review/perkins-1.1.zip’ removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’ [asinha@localhost perkins]$ [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [-] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [+] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [+] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [+] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [+] %doc files not required at runtime [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides [-] Development files go in -devel package [-] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa [-] No .la files [-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [-] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [-] Query upstream about including license files [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [+] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) [+] Scriptlets are sane [-] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [-] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [-] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [-] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [+] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [+] Useful without external bits [-] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [+] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on < EL6 [-] Requires correct, justified where necessary [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [+] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [-] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [-] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [-] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [-] No static executables [-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [-] No config files under /usr [-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [-] .desktop files are sane [-] Spec uses macros consistently [-] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate [-] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [-] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work [-] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time [+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [-] No software collections (scl) [-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [-] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [-] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [-] File ops preserve timestamps [-] Parallel make [-] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [-] No bundled fonts [-] Patches have appropriate commentary [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 The packaging looks good to me. The fontconfig file may need a little more work though. I looked at the fontforge output and it seems to be a Serif font. The files in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/ should be a good place to start. The "basic-font-template" should be sufficient for this font package. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZSbSk1MEZ7&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review