https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228865 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #6) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) > > Where is the license specified? > > There never was a license file. See here, bottom of the page: So please add a comment to the spec file explaining this. I think you should even include the "license text" in that comment. # https://web.archive.org/web/20150625020428/http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/ # "in lieu of a licence: # Fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or merchandise items; # they carry no trademark, copyright, license or other market tags; they are free # for any use. George Douros" > > %description seems to contain a private use unicode character (1480 > > 1561). > > Thanks, there was a funny-looking zero, I fixed it in both the spec file and > the metainfo.xml file. By the way, which tool picked that up? I does not display properly in firefox on my system, and I started investigating. You probably have the right font installed. > > [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > > Note: %defattr present but not needed > But I don't have a %defattr directive, where is this coming from? Oh, indeed. It must be coming from one of the macros. I fixed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047031 some time ago. I'm not sure where this one came from. Please ignore, it's not a bug in your package anyway. > > [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > > (~1MB) or number of files. > > Note: Documentation size is 808960 bytes in 1 files. > > That's borderline. A bit too small to create a separate package. > > See comments 1 & 4 here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208842 Yeah, agreed. > > Appdata file should be validated in %check > > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData]. > > Does this apply to metainfo.xml files? I thought it was just for the > appdata.xml ones. Yes. That paragraph talks about both kinds of files, and says that files should be checked with making a distinction between the two types. > > $ appstream-util validate-relax > > /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml > > /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > > • markup-invalid : <id> does not have correct extension for kind > > • tag-missing : <extends> is not present > > Validation of files failed > > On an F22 system, I'm getting this: > $ appstream-util validate-relax > rpmbuild/SOURCES/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml > rpmbuild/SOURCES/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml: OK > > I can't understand why there would be a problem with the id tag or why the > extends tag would be needed, it does not extend anything. > > On what system did you run fedora-review? I run that on F21. On rawhide indeed it doesn't say anything. > I've just noticed that fedora-review on this system creates an F21 package > even though I fed it an F23 source rpm built in mock, is there a setting > someplace that I've missed? Most likely you have /etc/mock/default.cfg linked to fedora-21-x86_64.cfg. I link it to fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg instead. -- To sum up, please add: - a comment about the license - %check with appstream-util validate-relax Package is APPROVED. Are all Douros fonts packaged? If you have any left to package, I'll be happy to review. -- 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