https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525860
Parag AN(पराग) <panem...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panem...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Suggestions:
1) Remove Group: tag
2) There is no appstream metainfo file. Please write one and install to the
upstream recommended new location /usr/share/metainfo
See
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Fonts.html
3) Do not reset to older builds, always start renamed package from where we
left old package so this package should have
Version: 2.000
Release: 9%{?dist}
and
# Remove in F30
Provides: nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts = %{version}-9
Obsoletes: nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts < 2.000-9
4) Follow
https://pagure.io/fontpackages/raw/master/f/spec-templates/spectemplate-fonts-simple.spec
and add %check also
5) Good to document reason why this rename is happening just above Obsoletes:
and Provides: line
===== 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.
[-]: 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1525860-naver-nanum-gothic-
coding-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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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
=> No I don't think we need to run this which is based on yum and python2 for
rawhide.
[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-1.fc28.src.rpm
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
NanumGothicCoding-2.0.zip
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://dev.naver.com/projects/nanumfont/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
--------
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts)
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts:
config(naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts)
font(:lang=bg)
font(:lang=fj)
font(:lang=ho)
font(:lang=ia)
font(:lang=ie)
font(:lang=io)
font(:lang=kj)
font(:lang=ko)
font(:lang=kum)
font(:lang=kwm)
font(:lang=lg)
font(:lang=ms)
font(:lang=ng)
font(:lang=nr)
font(:lang=om)
font(:lang=os)
font(:lang=rn)
font(:lang=ru)
font(:lang=rw)
font(:lang=sel)
font(:lang=sn)
font(:lang=so)
font(:lang=ss)
font(:lang=st)
font(:lang=sw)
font(:lang=ts)
font(:lang=uz)
font(:lang=xh)
font(:lang=za)
font(:lang=zu)
font(nanumgothiccoding)
font(나눔고딕코딩)
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts
nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1525860 -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
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
