Bug 1208842

1) When I ran fedora-review on this package, I see
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/parag/rev/1208842-gdouros-symbola-fonts/srpm/gdouros-symbola-fonts.spec       2015-04-07 06:15:33.505471601 +0530
+++ /home/parag/rev/1208842-gdouros-symbola-fonts/srpm-unpacked/gdouros-symbola-fonts.spec      2015-04-02 16:15:34.000000000 +0530
@@ -68,6 +68,5 @@
 * Fri Mar 13 2015 Alexander Ploumistos <alexpl> - 7.21-2
 - Rebuilt for 20150308 internal update
-- Remove font with hinting as discussed on fedora-devel mailing list
-- Change license to Public Domain
+- Remove font with hinting as discussed on fedora-devel mailing list

 * Thu Mar 05 2015 Alexander Ploumistos <alexpl> - 7.21-1


Can you fix this and have the same spec packaged in srpm?

2) Also, its not good to package a single doc file separately. Add it in main package only. Just add it next to %_font_pkg line.

3) Change other packages also if they have -doc subpackage then drop it.

4) You need sponsorship in packager group. Can you do some informal reviews on other packages waiting for their package review?

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> 1) When I ran fedora-review on this package, I see
> Diff spec file in url and in SRPM

I must have picked the wrong file from the "Recent" list in Nautilus, will upload the correct one ASAP.


> 2) Also, its not good to package a single doc file separately. Add it in
> main package only. Just add it next to %_font_pkg line.

George Douros used to package the fonts along with some simple text files, that contained a brief description of each font, sometimes a changelog and sometimes a pdf with more or less the same stuff. Now he's switched to packaging the fonts with MS Word files (with descriptions, changelogs etc.). The pdfs are hosted separately on his site as "font previews". Should I keep them in the same package as the font, like you suggested, or should I drop them altogether? As far as I understand, MS Office files (which are the most useful ones in this case) should not be packaged.


> 3) Change other packages also if they have -doc subpackage then drop it.

Just let me know what you think is best and I will do the same for all packages.
 

> 4) You need sponsorship in packager group. Can you do some informal reviews
> on other packages waiting for their package review?

I'll try to find projects close to home and if there aren't any, I'll just rely on the tools. I hope I'll have some by the end of the week.

OK, I have uploaded the matching source rpm, I'll sit on the rest of them until you weigh in on the documentation issue.
Meanwhile, I'm looking at packages to review. Should I CC you in the corresponding review requests?

Thank you for your time.

Sorry I have been very much busy this week. I had a look at the same package links in comment#0

1) You should move the pdf file from -doc to main package. We don't need -doc subpackage. We also don't need then any other format of the pdf documentation like MS Word files.

2) I am already watching the package review queue so no need to add me to package reviews I will pick them once we have this approved :)

3) When you do informal package reviews, please post the direct comment link of that package review here so I can have a look at it.

Thanks for the input. Even though the pdf files are not documentation per se, they are useful, because they demonstrate which glyphs each font covers/provides (but they can be quite big).

A family issue came up and I have to leave for a few days, I expect to be back by Tuesday. I don't know if I'll be able to upload any updated files before then, I'm taking along a laptop without FAS certificates and stuff installed; I'll focus on the reviews instead. I've spotted a couple of packages so far that I think I understand how they are supposed to work and I'll check them out when I have internet access again.

Have a nice weekend.

First review here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201925

I can see now why people aren't anxious to review packages :)

And another one:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161483

I am a little worried that so far I've only noticed mostly licensing issues...

Thanks. Can you please add some more findings in your reviews? I see you are able to find licensing issues but you need to add more points in your review.

In those two, I went through the checklist provided by fedora-review while constantly checking the packaging guidelines and -at least to me- they both seemed to be in order.

I'm not done with reviewing, but a) I am terrified to review packages from people who are a lot more experienced than I am in this area and b) reviewing packages that have been in the queue for years seems weird, especially since my reviews are unofficial, I don't want to give any false hopes. Oh, and c), mock builds take forever on this crappy machine.

I'll be returning home tomorrow, so I'll pick up the pace and also fix my packages.

Updated files, without doc sub-package:

https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-symbola-fonts/gdouros-symbola-fonts.spec

https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-symbola-fonts/gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-3.fc21.src.rpm

By the way, fedora-review now complains about the %doc files size and/or number, e.g. for gdouros-aegyptus-fonts it says:

Issues:
=======
[...]
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
  or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 3051520 bytes in 3 files.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation

Another review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212124

Is this what you meant?

Just ignore fedora-review complaining about %doc file size. In general, we generate -doc when there is a documentation on how to use API provided by that package and such documentation is generated by compiling source files.

Please update all other packages and do 2 more full package reviews providing fedora-review formatted output.

Hi, I updated all the font packages together, on the 14th.

I have found a few packages that I intend to review, but I have a lot of reading to do before submitting reviews. Do I need to replicate the entire checklist every time or just the items that need manual review and those that fedora-review has somehow missed? So far I have checked each one of them, I just mentioned what I thought was worth mentioning.

Also, I got a notification today about my "Application to the 'packager' group". I suppose I don't have to deal with that before I am sponsored, do I?

Good to see issues found in packaging and their fixes provided in the review. Then generally I check few things in the review like package build successfully in rawhide, source checksum of tarball in srpm is same as provided by Source0: URL of tarball, license tag, rpmlint output is clean.

I am following this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Sponsoring_Someone_for_Fedora_Package_Collection for your sponsorship :)

Sponsor need to add contributor in packager group and later on when sponsor see contributor is ready to be sponsored, he will sponsor so no action needed from you for that notification.

In this review, I limited my post to the issues I found and I didn't include things that were OK:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210941

I finally got some idle time (Windows Update time to be more accurate) and I was able to do another one:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214840

sorry I was very much busy since last few days. Let me finish your reviews today.

No worries, I intend to do some more though and then I will check all my packages again.

I have brought all the packages over to the naming scheme you suggested, changed "cp" to "cp -p" (can't believe I had missed that) in all %prep sections and I have added the appropriate changelog entries.

Here are the updated versions for Symbola:

https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-symbola-fonts/gdouros-symbola-fonts.spec

https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-symbola-fonts/gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-0.3.20150430.fc21.src.rpm

The updated srpm in comment#20 looks good now.

Package APPROVED.

You want to submit here package change request to own this package. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: gdouros-symbola-fonts
Branches: f20 f21 f22 master
Owners: alexpl
InitialCC: fonts-sig

Complete.

gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-0.3.20150430.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-0.3.20150430.fc22

gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-0.3.20150430.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

I don't think it is really mandatory to add license text in the spec file as the text given in the upstream website already matches with the definition of Public Domain license given on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing page.

But if needed to be added they should be added just before License: tag and not at the start of spec file which will look as if its the license of this spec file.

oops please discard above comment it should be for other bug.