[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-26 13:14 EST --- One other thing, Source0 should contain a full URL to the zip archive: ftp://cam.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/utilities/fontools.zip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-26 13:07 EST --- OK. when you submit lcdf-typetools for review, please add the bugzilla number to the "depends on" box of this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Issue 43029] support PS-OpenType/OTF/(SFNT with CFF) fonts for PDF export and printing
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029 User chrullrich changed the following: What|Old value |New value CC|'bahein,benjamin_schallar,|'bahein,benjamin_schallar, |bernd_schoeler,ckolivas,cw|bernd_schoeler,chrullrich, |oollard,fedorafonts,iorsh,|ckolivas,cwoollard,fedoraf |jeongkyu,masayan,msundman,|onts,iorsh,jeongkyu,masaya |simos'|n,msundman,simos' - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-26 13:00 EST --- Oops. The lcdf-typetools I have on my box are indeed from a different repo. So, first I have to package those for Fedora. I'll come back to this package once that's done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-26 12:58 EST --- lcdf-typetools was in the Fedora Extras repo up until before FC6, so can be resurrected from CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and
fontinst
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-26 12:44 EST ---
A major problem: lcdf-typetools is not available in the Fedora repositories, so
until that is packaged, this is somewhat blocked. Nonetheless, see below.
I am not a sponsor, so cannot officially review the package since your sponsor
must do that, so here is a "pre-review" which will hopefully save a sponsor some
time.
Legend:
GOOD: + BAD: -
Not Applicable: N/A
Still in Progress or questinable: ?
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
See Above
+ MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
The Requires for texlive-latex should be replaced with Requires: tex(latex)
For consistency %buildroot should be %{buildroot} throughout. Similarly with
%_mandir/%{_mandir}
The preferred value for BuildRoot is
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
but the one that is currently used is the second best, so not a blocker.
I notice that the Perl module dependencies are correctly detected by rpm, so no
need for explicit perl module dependencies.
+ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
See rpmlint output
+ MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable
to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not
the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
upstream: 4c879bc479d48965a99abfaebd1b9101 fontools.zip
package: 4c879bc479d48965a99abfaebd1b9101 fontools-20070807.zip
+ MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
N/A MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions exceptions
section of Packaging Guidelines] ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is
optional. Apply common sense.
BuildRequires: texlive-texmf is really desireable, as this will define
%{_texmf_main}, which you should use instead of%{_texmf}, I think. Currently the
BuildRequires: /usr/binkpsewich actually does pull this in, but I think it
should be an explicit package dependency. Related to that, I wonder about this
macro at the top:
%{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
would it not be preferable to have the following?
%{!?_texmf_main: %define _texmf_main %{_datadir}/texmf}
This is up for debate, and we really need to get some tex packaging guidelines
sorted out.
+ MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
N/A MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
+ MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
+ MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-26 10:45 EST --- Builds cleanly in mock. rpmlint output: tex-fontools.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL tex-fontools.src: W: invalid-license GPL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The package contains a copy of the GPL v2 license, but not COPYING file. However, according to the docs it is licensed under GPLv2 (and not GPLv2+), so I think the license tag should be GPLv2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
