https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237281 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Review: + Package built fine for F23 x86_64 + rpmlint on all generated rpms gave output bashithacomplex-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Bashitha -> Bashing bashithacomplex-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bashithacomplex-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Bashitha -> Bashing 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum) Source in srpm:8460b239ee8fd0d92fcb2762b411d2560ba91b45958d49a24b1ee5a052d47008 Upstream source:8460b239ee8fd0d92fcb2762b411d2560ba91b45958d49a24b1ee5a052d47008 + follows fonts packaging guidelines Suggestions: 1) Correct the release tag as Release: 0.1.%{checkout}%{?dist} 2) You should also add metainfo file, see sample at http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/lklug-fonts.git/tree/ and also do changes in spec file to install this bashithacomplex.metainfo.xml file 3) Note following lines are optional now in Fedora packages rm -fr %{buildroot} and %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} 4) Ask upstream to provide license somewhere on their website which we can download and add to this package. License is not clear just by downloading ttf file. Also, on upstream website they used word "BhashitaScreen" and it is not related to the font file we are packaging so not sure what license is for this BhashitaComplex font. -- 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