https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263710 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fbf-mukti-fonts See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2263710-fbf-mukti- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1964 bytes in 2 files. [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. [ ]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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 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: fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.3-2.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/tmp5dqi1cgx')] checks: 32, packages: 1 fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('Bangla', 'Summary(en_US) Bangla -> Bangle, Bang la, Bang-la') fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('https', '%description -l en_US https -> HTTP') fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow') fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('akruti', '%description -l en_US akruti -> rutting') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/SOURCES/66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151 https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/archive/v3.0.3/fonts-mukti-3.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b13317dacb3c644e9ad394725b8faf59346f661fc8f72aa77011a4cf1ea39ef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b13317dacb3c644e9ad394725b8faf59346f661fc8f72aa77011a4cf1ea39ef Requires -------- Provides -------- Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2263710 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Haskell, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Changelog date of Fri Feb 13 2024 is incorrect. b) Line length in description is too long, should be less than 80 characters. c) The date is usually sufficient for the changelog, time is not required. d) Configuration seems ok: $ fc-query muktibold.otf Pattern has 28 elts (size 32) family: "Mukti"(s) "মুক্তি"(s) familylang: "en"(s) "bn"(s) style: "Bold"(s) stylelang: "en"(s) fullname: "Mukti Bold"(s) "মুক্তি বোল্ড"(s) fullnamelang: "en"(s) "bn"(s) slant: 0(i)(s) weight: 200(f)(s) width: 100(f)(s) foundry: "fbf "(s) file: "muktibold.otf"(s) index: 0(i)(s) outline: True(s) scalable: True(s) charset: 0000: 00000000 ffffffff f8000001 78000001 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000 0009: 00000000 00000000 00060000 00000030 fff99fef f3c5fdff b080799f 7fffffcf 0020: 30003800 00000000 00000010 00000000 00000000 02001000 00000000 00000000 0025: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00001000 00000000 (s) lang: as|bn|mni(s) fontversion: 130416(i)(s) capability: "otlayout:bng2"(s) fontformat: "CFF"(s) decorative: False(s) postscriptname: "muktibold"(s) color: False(s) symbol: False(s) variable: False(s) fonthashint: False(s) order: 0(i)(s) namedinstance: False(s) fontwrapper: "SFNT"(s) $ fc-query mukti.otf Pattern has 28 elts (size 32) family: "Mukti"(s) "মুক্তি"(s) familylang: "en"(s) "bn"(s) style: "Regular"(s) "Book"(s) stylelang: "en"(s) "en"(s) fullname: "Mukti"(s) "মুক্তি"(s) fullnamelang: "en"(s) "bn"(s) slant: 0(i)(s) weight: 100(f)(s) width: 100(f)(s) foundry: "fbf "(s) file: "mukti.otf"(s) index: 0(i)(s) outline: True(s) scalable: True(s) charset: 0000: 00000000 ffffffff f8000001 78000001 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000 0009: 00000000 00000000 00060000 00000030 fff99fef f3c5fdff b080799f 7fffffcf 0020: 30003800 00000000 00000010 00000000 00000000 02001000 00000000 00000000 0025: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00001000 00000000 (s) lang: as|bn|mni(s) fontversion: 130416(i)(s) capability: "otlayout:bng2"(s) fontformat: "CFF"(s) decorative: False(s) postscriptname: "Mukti"(s) color: False(s) symbol: False(s) variable: False(s) fonthashint: False(s) order: 0(i)(s) namedinstance: False(s) fontwrapper: "SFNT"(s) e) Thanks for bringing this back to Fedora. Approved. Please fix formatting of spec file before re-importing. -- 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=2263710 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202263710%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
