https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661865 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Suggestions: 1) Version number in ttf does not match with released tarball, though not a blocker but good to ask upstream to keep it in sync Or Check if we can build from source ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [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: "SIL Open Font License (v1.1)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1661865-smc-rachana-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 [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. ==> Provides are not needed as we are just splitting original package [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [x]: 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: [x]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. [x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log. Rpmlint ------- Checking: smc-rachana-fonts-7.0.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm smc-rachana-fonts-7.0.1-1.fc30.src.rpm smc-rachana-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided smc-fonts-common 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory smc-rachana-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/rachana <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> smc-rachana-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided smc-fonts-common 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- smc-rachana-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(smc-rachana-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- smc-rachana-fonts: config(smc-rachana-fonts) font(:lang=aa) font(:lang=an) font(:lang=ay) font(:lang=bi) font(:lang=br) font(:lang=ch) font(:lang=da) font(:lang=de) font(:lang=en) font(:lang=es) font(:lang=eu) font(:lang=fil) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=fo) font(:lang=fur) font(:lang=fy) font(:lang=gd) font(:lang=gl) font(:lang=gv) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=ht) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=id) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=is) font(:lang=it) font(:lang=jv) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=lb) font(:lang=li) font(:lang=mg) font(:lang=ml) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=nb) font(:lang=nds) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nl) font(:lang=nn) font(:lang=no) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=oc) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=pap-an) font(:lang=pap-aw) font(:lang=pt) font(:lang=rm) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sc) font(:lang=sg) font(:lang=sma) font(:lang=smj) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=sq) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=su) font(:lang=sv) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=tl) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=vo) font(:lang=wa) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=yap) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(rachana) metainfo() metainfo(smc-rachana.metainfo.xml) smc-rachana-fonts Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/rachana/-/archive/Version7.0.1/rachana-Version7.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 84cc2e1ffa5ab5de3725fd4cba6a439356859e38ebc568fdd21c252f55707f1e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84cc2e1ffa5ab5de3725fd4cba6a439356859e38ebc568fdd21c252f55707f1e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1661865 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 APPROVED -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
