[Bug 1809918] Review Request: adobe-afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType

2020-08-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
   Fixed In Version||adobe-afdko-3.2.0-1.fc33
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2020-08-03 00:29:54



--- Comment #9 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Please close your Review Requests when they are complete.


-- 
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 1809918] Review Request: adobe-afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType

2020-04-05 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918



--- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adobe-afdko


-- 
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 1809918] Review Request: adobe-afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType

2020-04-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
LGTM, package 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 -- 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 1809918] Review Request: adobe-afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType

2020-04-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918



--- Comment #6 from vishalvvr  ---
SPEC Url:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vishalvvr/afdko/fedora-31-x86_64/01326692-adobe-afdko/adobe-afdko.spec

SRMP URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vishalvvr/afdko/fedora-31-x86_64/01326692-adobe-afdko/adobe-afdko-3.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm

Note: Updated the package as per the suggestions mentioned above.


-- 
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 1809918] Review Request: adobe-afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType

2020-03-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Summary|Review Request: afdko - |Review Request: adobe-afdko
   |Adobe Font Development Kit  |- Adobe Font Development
   |for OpenType|Kit for OpenType



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Bump to 3.2.0

 - Not needed:

%ldconfig_scriptlets

 - Include docs/

%doc docs/


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font
 License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 6815 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/adobe-afdko/review-adobe-
 afdko/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 163840 bytes in 2 files.
[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 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 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]: 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.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if