https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805752

Parag AN(पराग) <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[email protected]
           Assignee|[email protected]    |[email protected]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <[email protected]> ---
Review:

This package follows new fonts packaging guidelines.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jetbrains-mono-fonts-1.0.3-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          jetbrains-mono-fonts-1.0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
jetbrains-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono
space, mono-space, aerospace
jetbrains-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US сut
jetbrains-mono-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.03-1
['1.0.3-1.fc33', '1.0.3-1']
jetbrains-mono-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono
space, mono-space, aerospace
jetbrains-mono-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US сut
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/JetBrains/JetBrainsMono/archive/v1.0.3/JetBrainsMono-1.0.3.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
24b423336d702e209a7181873300f855078d2c47e1a519c63ce57755ea7569ea
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
24b423336d702e209a7181873300f855078d2c47e1a519c63ce57755ea7569ea


Requires
--------
jetbrains-mono-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(jetbrains-mono-fonts)
    fontpackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
jetbrains-mono-fonts:
    config(jetbrains-mono-fonts)
    font(jetbrainsmono)
    font(jetbrainsmonoextrabold)
    font(jetbrainsmonomedium)
    jetbrains-mono-fonts
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.fedoraproject.jetbrains-mono-fonts.metainfo.xml)



All other things like license, config, metainfo files looks good.

Issues:
1) Fix the rpmlint warnings/errors before import of this package
2) I looked for %license in this package spec but cannot find it. Shouldn't we
need to mark some file say OFL.txt as %license?
I see in other packages when you create -doc subpackage %license gets marked
automatically.

APPROVED.

-- 
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 -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]

Reply via email to