https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2185592 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 14434 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2185592-twemoji-fonts/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/fonts/twemoji(twitter-twemoji-fonts) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 15603 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). fonts: [!]: Run fc-query on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find fc-query command, install fontconfig package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Rpmlint ------- Checking: twemoji-fonts-14.1.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4trqu1v3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jdecked/twemoji/archive/v14.1.2.tar.gz#/twemoji-14.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : badf215f04ca1e1851339920d2cdd759e21a8773f5352b4469c34e53ab825f9a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : badf215f04ca1e1851339920d2cdd759e21a8773f5352b4469c34e53ab825f9a https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-emoji/archive/ac1703e9d7feebbf5443a986e08332b1e1c5afcf.tar.gz#/noto-emoji-ac1703e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c957dc4a34f4b8173a38eb932f315a31e6733773ce4adf9635643824d4c9aaab CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c957dc4a34f4b8173a38eb932f315a31e6733773ce4adf9635643824d4c9aaab Requires -------- Provides -------- Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2185592-twemoji-fonts/srpm/twemoji-fonts.spec 2024-01-20 04:59:20.092413161 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2185592-twemoji-fonts/srpm-unpacked/twemoji-fonts.spec 2023-04-10 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -8,5 +8,5 @@ Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 14.1.2 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Emoji for everyone @@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ ## Artwork is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International ## Non-artwork is MIT -License: OFL-1.1 AND Apache-2.0 AND CC-BY-4.0 AND MIT +License: OFL and ASL 2.0 and CC-BY and MIT URL: https://github.com/jdecked/twemoji Source0: https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-emoji/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/noto-emoji-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz @@ -94,7 +94,4 @@ %changelog -* Mon Apr 24 2023 Peter Oliver <rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 14.1.2-2 -- SPDX migration. - * Mon Apr 10 2023 Peter Oliver <rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 14.1.2-1 - Update to version 14.1.2. Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2185592 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Perl, Python, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Builds on Koji https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112023601 b) Can latest version be packaged? c) Code is not installed, just used in the build, so perhaps licenses should be OFL, Creative Commons and Public domain? d) Why are two repositories needed? Maybe helpful to explain one repository is used for the build workflow. e) Would expect a fontconfig file, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ f) May consider using: https://github.com/13rac1/twemoji-color-font/ Which is avilable for OpenSUSE https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory/twemoji-color-font/twemoji-color-font.spec?expand=1 g) TexLive also has a twemoji build: https://github.com/mozilla/twemoji-colr this is in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/texlive/texlive-twemoji-colr -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2185592 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202185592%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
