https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402440
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/twr-mint-mono-fonts/2402440-twr-mint-mono- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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]: 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 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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 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: twr-mint-mono-35-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm twr-mint-mono-fonts-all-0.0.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm twr-mint-mono-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpdfz1aprs')] checks: 32, packages: 3 twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', 'Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace') twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', '%description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace') twr-mint-mono-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('monospace', 'Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace') twr-mint-mono-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('monospace', '%description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace') twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation twr-mint-mono-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 2.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 checks: 32, packages: 2 twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', 'Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace') twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', '%description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace') twr-mint-mono-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yuru7/mint-mono/refs/heads/main/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3fc019a3c0fc4c106acd73d98797d45910bb1735b14885c5855d5353fa33f56d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3fc019a3c0fc4c106acd73d98797d45910bb1735b14885c5855d5353fa33f56d https://github.com/yuru7/mint-mono/releases/download/v0.0.1/MintMono_v0.0.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : db024b5facab56ff342d2effecf8f780ce1c7f41be951679df71b204f0a36e51 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db024b5facab56ff342d2effecf8f780ce1c7f41be951679df71b204f0a36e51 Requires -------- twr-mint-mono-35-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(twr-mint-mono-35-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem twr-mint-mono-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): twr-mint-mono-35-fonts twr-mint-mono-fonts Provides -------- twr-mint-mono-35-fonts: config(twr-mint-mono-35-fonts) font(mintmono35) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.metainfo.xml) twr-mint-mono-35-fonts twr-mint-mono-fonts-all: twr-mint-mono-fonts-all Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2402440 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, fonts Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Perl, R, Ocaml, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) M-Plus fonts have a different license: https://github.com/yuru7/mint-mono/blob/main/source/circle-mplus-1m/LICENSE_E.txt but it seems compatible with relicensing derived works. b) Please ask upstream to package the license file in releases c) Approved d) Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401972 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399993 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2386164 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402458 would be appreciated if time allows. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402440 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202402440%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
