https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026376 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/fontawesome-fonts.spec ./fontawesome-fonts-4.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/fontawesome-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/assets/font-awesome-4.0.0.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found fontawesome-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable fontawesome-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/assets/font-awesome-4.0.0.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found fontawesome-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable fontawesome-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation fontawesome-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable fontawesome-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/assets/font-awesome-4.0.0.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found fontawesome-fonts-web.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ ^^ - A new version is out which should correct the 404 errors. - No documentation in src tarball. Please consider asking upstream to include a license if possible. Otherwise please remove the %doc macro since it's unneeded. [+] License is acceptable (...) [+] License field in spec is correct ^ License is included in the font metadata itself: SIL Open Font License 1.1 [?] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [?] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ^ Please consider requesting upstream to include a license file. This isn't necessary though, since the font clearly declares what license it's under. [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [?] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream SHA256: ... Your SHA256: ... ^ Cannot check md5 since the spec is using an older version which isn't available. To be checked once spec is updated to pack new version. [+] 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 TODO [-] Translations of description, summary [-] Builds in mock [-] Builds on all arches [?] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) Not yet checked. Please do this. [+] 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 $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [+] No software collections (scl) [-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [-] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [+] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [+] File ops preserve timestamps [-] Parallel make [+] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts [-] Patches have appropriate commentary [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 File ownership list: [asinha@ankur-laptop result]$ for i in *rpm; do echo "== $i =="; rpmls "$i"; done == fontawesome-fonts-4.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm == lrwxrwxrwx /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-fontawesome.conf -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-fontawesome.conf drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/fonts/fontawesome -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fonts/fontawesome/FontAwesome.otf -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fonts/fontawesome/fontawesome-webfont.ttf == fontawesome-fonts-4.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm == -rw-rw-r-- font-awesome-4.0.0.zip -rw-rw-r-- fontawesome-fonts-fontconfig.conf -rw-rw-r-- fontawesome-fonts.spec == fontawesome-fonts-web-4.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm == drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/css -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/css/font-awesome.css -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/css/font-awesome.min.css drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/bordered-pulled.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/core.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/fixed-width.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/font-awesome.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/icons.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/larger.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/list.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/mixins.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/path.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/rotated-flipped.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/spinning.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/stacked.less -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/less/variables.less drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_bordered-pulled.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_core.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_fixed-width.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_icons.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_larger.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_list.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_mixins.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_path.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_rotated-flipped.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_spinning.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_stacked.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/_variables.scss -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/font-awesome-4.0.0/scss/font-awesome.scss [asinha@ankur-laptop result]$ Requires + Provides list: [asinha@ankur-laptop result]$ review-req-check == fontawesome-fonts-4.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm == Provides: config(fontawesome-fonts) = 4.0.0-1.fc21 font(fontawesome) fontawesome-fonts = 4.0.0-1.fc21 Requires: /bin/sh /bin/sh config(fontawesome-fonts) = 4.0.0-1.fc21 fontpackages-filesystem == fontawesome-fonts-4.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: fontpackages-devel == fontawesome-fonts-web-4.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm == Provides: fontawesome-fonts-web = 4.0.0-1.fc21 Requires: fontawesome-fonts = 4.0.0-1.fc21 - The fontconfig priority is OK. - The packaging is mostly OK. I just need to make a few more checks with the updated version and I should be able to approve it. - I see the fonts contain youtube etc in them. I think they're OK, and in line with the trademarks, but you should check and consult LEGAL if necessary. https://developers.google.com/youtube/branding https://developer.linkedin.com/documents/branding-guidelines - The font version according to font metadata is 3.2.0. Worth pointing out to upstream and requesting them to update the metadata each time they make a new release. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review