Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1368606 (grand-hotel-fonts)
Summary: | Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Luya Tshimbalanga <luya> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | gil cattaneo <puntogil> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, package-review, panemade, puntogil |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | puntogil:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-09-05 17:52:48 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Luya Tshimbalanga
2016-08-19 23:32:51 UTC
Resulting scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15312376 Valid rpmlint: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-1.fc24.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. can take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366840 for me ? %install rm -fr %{buildroot} Please, remove 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [x]: %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: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-1.fc26.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- Provides -------- Source checksums ---------------- https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/download/grand-hotel/grand-hotel.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b3d8ff8193a5f30ea9352e6a496243b18ad147d34f375db7214ff7739b157ead CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7d9c248d5d030e6e8bb303d5d6c8f03aab5c47fa4c616b759fda4a2be8e113a However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1368606 --plugins fonts -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 NON blocking issues: [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required Please, remove before import (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5) > NON blocking issues: > > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required > > Please, remove before import Thank you. That line is from rpmdev-newspec template which needs to be addressed. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8b432f332a astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ba48bbbba astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bb36767af1 astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2f950cb0a0 astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8b432f332a astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bb36767af1 astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ba48bbbba astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2f950cb0a0 astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |