[Bug 1492475] Review Request: aftertheflood-spark-fonts - a font to display charts within text

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492475

Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> ---
This package seems okay aside from some font-specific things. I'm not totally
qualified to review those, but from what I can see:

Version is a bit weird. Upstream has no tags, but the webpage claims that
"Version 1 was released". The spec uses a date but pulls from a commit; this
doesn't follow the snapshot versioning guidelines.

>From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy:
> Fonts SHOULD be built from source whenever upstream provides them in a source format

They are provided but I'm not sure how easy it is to build from them as there
don't appear to be any instructions.

Since you were able to work with upstream to get the license added, you can
suggest to them to add the "license description" (#13) or "license info URL"
(#14) fields in the fonts themselves.

Speaking of licensing, MIT is not one of the recommended or explicitly approved
licenses for fonts:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Approved_font_licenses
That page is a bit old (it still points to the old legal list) but I could not
find any MIT+font references in the archives, so I guess you'd have to clarify
that one. Alternatively, upstream might be amenable to a more font-friendly
license.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[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 %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 1141 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     review/1492475-aftertheflood-spark-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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:
[!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
     Note: Cannot find createrepo, install createrepo package to make a
     comprehensive font review.
     See: url: undefined
[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
     Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: aftertheflood-spark-fonts-20170907-1.fc28.src.rpm
aftertheflood-spark-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
Sparklines -> Spark lines, Spark-lines, Sparkles
aftertheflood-spark-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------


Provides
--------


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/aftertheflood/spark/archive/ddbbf6f7b6cf9f1091b61748b6d44d1439d6f919/aftertheflood-spark-fonts-20170907.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
902bbf34e352b75367a997a22fb509202152b19258ee2d32956c6d6f7ae80f5e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
902bbf34e352b75367a997a22fb509202152b19258ee2d32956c6d6f7ae80f5e


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1492475
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux