[Bug 1181726] Merge Review Request: dejavu-fonts - DejaVu fonts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181726



--- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Okay, sorry for the delay I was busy with some other things.


Here is a review of dejavu-fonts-2.34-4.fc22.src.rpm

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=586265 (2014-10-17)

Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
=======
- Package do not use a name that already exist
  Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/dejavu-fonts
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names

This is a Merge review.

===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in dejavu-fonts/licensecheck.txt

[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.

I think this is needed.

Probably good to note too that the "Arev Fonts Copyright" is
also a Bitstream Vera license?

[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required

This package is also for EPEL 5.

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

fonts:
[x]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
     Note: repo-font-audit analyze results in review-dejavu-fonts/fonts
directory.
[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
     Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dejavu-fonts-common-2.34-4.fc22.noarch.rpm
          dejavu-fonts-2.34-4.fc22.src.rpm
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-compat
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-doc
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat
dejavu-fonts.src:319: W: non-break-space line 319, char 19
dejavu-fonts.src:323: W: non-break-space line 323, char 21
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) [partial]
----------------------------
dejavu-sans-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-sans
dejavu-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
dejavu-serif-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-serif
dejavu-serif-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Monospace ->
Mono space, Mono-space, Aerospace
dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace
dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-sans-mono
dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-compat
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-doc
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Requires
--------
dejavu-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    fontpackages-filesystem

Provides
--------
dejavu-fonts-common:
    dejavu-fonts-common

Source checksums
----------------
Using local file dejavu-sans.metainfo.xml as upstream
dejavu-sans.metainfo.xml :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
8d8132bc5e0f0c935374eaedf17230194b41cced96622e22074395d89e0d41bf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
8d8132bc5e0f0c935374eaedf17230194b41cced96622e22074395d89e0d41bf
Using local file dejavu-sans-mono.metainfo.xml as upstream
dejavu-sans-mono.metainfo.xml :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
58fabcad46762bb3a977087778287848331ce6ffd5e8d43af5ea86b4ff66f1a1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
58fabcad46762bb3a977087778287848331ce6ffd5e8d43af5ea86b4ff66f1a1
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dejavu/dejavu-fonts-2.34.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
b5ca9e671635a9fe04c791cdc82c707ba57380c2cc8de3f92451a039134b9027
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b5ca9e671635a9fe04c791cdc82c707ba57380c2cc8de3f92451a039134b9027
Using local file dejavu.metainfo.xml as upstream
dejavu.metainfo.xml :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
7c4e7767ace36acd72b370f021b611f5febfa05a78ce84bad6c6dea1a08d4f63
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7c4e7767ace36acd72b370f021b611f5febfa05a78ce84bad6c6dea1a08d4f63
Using local file dejavu-serif.metainfo.xml as upstream
dejavu-serif.metainfo.xml :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
9a29a3ab1a99afce78d3429ac01ff210f27f5359ca98dbaeb1288fee8017177a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9a29a3ab1a99afce78d3429ac01ff210f27f5359ca98dbaeb1288fee8017177a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -p -n
dejavu-fonts
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

-- 
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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]