[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A sharp on-screen sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2020-03-25 13:46:34 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot --- Ok, I believe we’ve all waited long enough *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1811295 *** -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A sharp on-screen sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot --- FPC has now published the new guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ They are operational in F33, F32, and queued to F31 (only in testing for now) The bulk of the initial converted font package set made it to F32 before feature freeze. In addition of additional new font packages were reviewed and build (including packagers others created since the guideline publication) I’m going to post a full status summary to the devel and fonts lists later in the day. If you intend to finish the packaging of those fonts, please convert the package to the new guidelines and build the result in koji. You have an example in: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/package/intel-clear-sans-fonts/ Alternatively, if you don’t intend to pursue the packaging, close this issue and we’ll continue in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295 (I’ve zero wish to take over someone else’s fine attempt at packaging, I don’t need any new package to my name, I already have more than enough of those, but I don’t want this fine font absent from Fedora forever) -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A sharp on-screen sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 Adam Borowski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |intel-clear-sans-fonts |intel-clear-sans-fonts - A ||sharp on-screen sans-serif ||font -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot --- Hey, don't give up, the guidelines changes mostly simplify the spec part of the packaging, and it would be nice to have people from other packager teams taking a look as what we do in Fedora, if only to tell us when our choices are braindamaged. As you wrote upstream is not likely to change so it won't be an heavy maintenance package either way -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 --- Comment #3 from Adam Borowski --- Hmm... if you've already did the work, it'd probably be better for you to take it. Our upstream isn't very likely to produce frequent (or any) updates — Intel isn't exactly known for font making. I'm a part of the fonts team of another distribution (one with a red swirl...), but I have never packaged any font for a RPM distribution before, thus teaching me for an one-off piece is probably not worth your time. One improvement your packaging doesn't have is a fontconfig alias from "Intel Clear" to "Clear Sans" (the first name tends to come in documents from Intel, the second is one on publicly released font), but even that I've mindlessly lifted from Debian, so it probably fails to obey Fedora rules wrt. eg. sequence numbers. -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot --- See also: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/package/intel-clear-sans-fonts/ I don’t especially want to end up as Clear Sans Fedora maintainer (I have more than enough things on my plate already) but the packaging will need to be converted to the Fonts Guidelines FPC approved yesterday, as soon as the corresponding macro package hits fedora devel and fedora 32 -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974
Peter Oliver changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj
||ect.org, ma...@mavit.org.uk
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kilob...@angband.pl
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Peter Oliver ---
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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/mavit/1795974-intel-clear-sans-
fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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
