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
