Spec URL: http://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Cantarell is a contemporary Humanist sans serif that fully support the following writing systems: Basic Latin, Western European, Catalan, Baltic, Turkish, Central European, Dutch and Afrikaans.
Koji build scratch result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2398807 $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-1.fc13.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I am not yet a packager, so this is just an unofficial pre-review, and my first one of those. + OK ? ISSUE - N/A + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines [follows latest font template] + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License ? License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: c97c000a4084bed7108f4c75eae657c0 Cantarell-2009-07-17.zip - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. - Package has correct buildroot [no longer specified] + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + No rpmlint output. [paul@palant SPECS]$ rpmlint abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec \ ../RPMS/noarch/abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-1.fc13.noarch.rpm \ ../SRPMS/abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-1.fc13.src.rpm abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec:4: W: macro-in-comment %{name} abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec:4: W: macro-in-comment %{version} abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag abattis-cantarell-fonts.src:4: W: macro-in-comment %{name} abattis-cantarell-fonts.src:4: W: macro-in-comment %{version} abattis-cantarell-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. macro-in-comment is ignorable no-buildroot-tag is obsolete + final provides and requires are sane: Provides: abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-1.fc13.noarch.rpm config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-1.fc13 font(:lang=aa) font(:lang=af) font(:lang=an) font(:lang=ast) font(:lang=ay) font(:lang=bi) font(:lang=br) font(:lang=bs) font(:lang=ca) font(:lang=ch) font(:lang=co) font(:lang=crh) font(:lang=cs) font(:lang=csb) font(:lang=cy) font(:lang=da) font(:lang=de) font(:lang=en) font(:lang=eo) font(:lang=es) font(:lang=et) font(:lang=eu) font(:lang=fi) font(:lang=fil) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=fo) font(:lang=fr) font(:lang=fur) font(:lang=fy) font(:lang=ga) font(:lang=gd) font(:lang=gl) font(:lang=gv) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=hr) font(:lang=hsb) font(:lang=ht) font(:lang=hu) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=id) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=is) font(:lang=it) font(:lang=jv) font(:lang=ki) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=kl) font(:lang=ku-tr) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=la) font(:lang=lb) font(:lang=lg) font(:lang=li) font(:lang=lt) font(:lang=lv) font(:lang=mg) font(:lang=mh) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=mt) font(:lang=na) font(:lang=nb) font(:lang=nds) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nl) font(:lang=nn) font(:lang=no) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=nso) font(:lang=ny) font(:lang=oc) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=pap-an) font(:lang=pap-aw) font(:lang=pl) font(:lang=pt) font(:lang=rm) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sc) font(:lang=se) font(:lang=sg) font(:lang=sk) font(:lang=sl) font(:lang=sma) font(:lang=smj) font(:lang=smn) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=sq) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=su) font(:lang=sv) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=tk) font(:lang=tl) font(:lang=tn) font(:lang=tr) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=vo) font(:lang=vot) font(:lang=wa) font(:lang=wen) font(:lang=wo) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=yap) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(cantarell) abattis-cantarell-fonts = 1.001-1.fc13 Requires: config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-1.fc13 fontpackages-filesystem SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs + Should function as described. + Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Fonts MUST Items: (from Packaging:FontsPolicy) + Fonts released upstream in separate archives must be in separate src.rpm + Each font family must be in a separate (sub)package + Different faces of font family must be in a single (sub)package Fonts SHOULD Items: ? Fonts should be built from source whenever upstream provides them in source format Issues: 1. License should be "GPLv3+ with exceptions". 2. FontForge sources are provided, so they should be used to build the TTFs. You should ask upstream to provide a makefile to help automate this. I'll note that it is good to see that upstream has paid attention to the font metadata: it is not unusual to see fonts released under open licenses in which the metadata appears to place restrictions on usage (fsType field).
Source package is dual licensed as mentioned by upstream: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fonts/2010-August/001232.html Upstream is currently on the way to include makefile necessary to build TTF. Spec URL: http://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-1.fc13.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2430299
I sat down with the upstream developer (Dave Crossland) at FUDCon Zurich today, and I've helped him package up his font. We done a few things differently than the above spec file, including pulling in the separate .sfd files as sources instead of the .zip file, updating the license text, and a few other minor changes. If nobody objects, I'll CC Dave on this bug, as he is eager to work to become the primary maintainer of his own font package.
No problem, Dave is aware of this bug so feel free to CC. Simply post url from both spec and the srpm for review. Once Dave is ready, I will gladly hand over ownership to him and will be co-maintainer.
Bump. This font was used in the media art for F14. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/CDArt#Fedora_14_Media_Art and ought to be in the repos.
(In reply to comment #4) > I sat down with the upstream developer (Dave Crossland) at FUDCon Zurich today, > and I've helped him package up his font. > > We done a few things differently than the above spec file, including pulling in > the separate .sfd files as sources instead of the .zip file, updating the > license text, and a few other minor changes. > > If nobody objects, I'll CC Dave on this bug, as he is eager to work to become > the primary maintainer of his own font package. Jared, have you been able to upload spec and srpm somewhere so that it is available for review?
I was hoping that Dave would step up and submit the spec and SRPM himself, as he showed interest in becoming a font packager, and it would obviously be ideal to have the upstream developer be the packager. That being said, I'll go ahead and post the spec and SRPM that Dave and I worked on in Zurich. (Please note that I'm not yet an official packager, but I do have some experiencing in packaging RPMs, and should probably apply to become a packager. In other words, feedback and commentary is greatly appreciated.) http://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/Fonts/abattis-cantarell/abattis-cantarell.spec http://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/Fonts/abattis-cantarell/abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-2.fc13.src.rpm
I'll follow Paul Flo's template from comment #2 for the review of the new spec and srpm. I am not yet a packager either. + OK ? ISSUE - N/A + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines [follows latest font template] ? Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistent macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sums: 385cf2b29741381f41497521c6305a68 SOURCES/Cantarell-Regular.sfd 9f2607cb46af948d939e58a4ef289b17 SOURCES/Cantarell-Oblique.sfd 40785c6118f4891137a69fe31832dd64 SOURCES/Cantarell-Bold.sfd 5571bac0c11b2e0d042345d4847c7a06 SOURCES/Cantarell-BoldOblique.sfd - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - Package has a correct %clean section. - Package has correct buildroot [no longer specified] + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + No rpmlint output: 2 Warnings invalid-license OFL 1.1+ (can be ignored, known GPLv3+ is specified) no-documentation (none needed) + final provides and requires are sane: Provides: config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-2.fc14 font(:lang=aa) font(:lang=af) font(:lang=an) font(:lang=ast) font(:lang=ay) font(:lang=bi) font(:lang=br) font(:lang=bs) font(:lang=ca) font(:lang=ch) font(:lang=co) font(:lang=crh) font(:lang=cs) font(:lang=csb) font(:lang=cy) font(:lang=da) font(:lang=de) font(:lang=en) font(:lang=eo) font(:lang=es) font(:lang=et) font(:lang=eu) font(:lang=fi) font(:lang=fil) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=fo) font(:lang=fr) font(:lang=fur) font(:lang=fy) font(:lang=ga) font(:lang=gd) font(:lang=gl) font(:lang=gv) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=hr) font(:lang=hsb) font(:lang=ht) font(:lang=hu) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=id) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=is) font(:lang=it) font(:lang=jv) font(:lang=ki) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=kl) font(:lang=ku-tr) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=la) font(:lang=lb) font(:lang=lg) font(:lang=li) font(:lang=lt) font(:lang=lv) font(:lang=mg) font(:lang=mh) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=mt) font(:lang=na) font(:lang=nb) font(:lang=nds) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nl) font(:lang=nn) font(:lang=no) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=nso) font(:lang=ny) font(:lang=oc) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=pap-an) font(:lang=pap-aw) font(:lang=pl) font(:lang=pt) font(:lang=rm) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sc) font(:lang=se) font(:lang=sg) font(:lang=sk) font(:lang=sl) font(:lang=sma) font(:lang=smj) font(:lang=smn) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=sq) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=su) font(:lang=sv) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=tk) font(:lang=tl) font(:lang=tn) font(:lang=tr) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=vo) font(:lang=vot) font(:lang=wa) font(:lang=wen) font(:lang=wo) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=yap) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(cantarell) abattis-cantarell-fonts = 1.001-2.fc14 Requires: /bin/sh /bin/sh config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-2.fc14 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs koji build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2592959 + Should function as described. (tested with oowriter) + Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Fonts MUST Items: (from Packaging:FontsPolicy) + Fonts released upstream in separate archives must be in separate src.rpm + Each font family must be in a separate (sub)package + Different faces of font family must be in a single (sub)package Fonts SHOULD Items: + Fonts should be built from source whenever upstream provides them in source format ISSUES: rename spec file to match package name
Stephen: are you going to review this? (You haven't set the fedora-review flag...)
Ugh sorry I thought I had.
Renamed the spec file at http://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/Fonts/abattis-cantarell/abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec
1) I want to thank Michael Gruber and Paul Flo Williams.. I have looked through the updated spec and src.rpm and want to +1 their work as package reviewers. 2) I am including the below just to make sure I have done a review myself correctly. + OK ? ISSUE - N/A W WARNING below + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. W License + License field in spec matches ? License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: 40785c6118f4891137a69fe31832dd64 Cantarell-Bold.sfd 5571bac0c11b2e0d042345d4847c7a06 Cantarell-BoldOblique.sfd 9f2607cb46af948d939e58a4ef289b17 Cantarell-Oblique.sfd 385cf2b29741381f41497521c6305a68 Cantarell-Regular.sfd - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. W No rpmlint output. Sent rpm through koji and ran the results through rpmlint rpmlint abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.* abattis-cantarell-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Crossland -> Cross land, Cross-land, Crossly abattis-cantarell-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license OFL 1.1+ abattis-cantarell-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation abattis-cantarell-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Crossland -> Cross land, Cross-land, Crossly abattis-cantarell-fonts.src: W: invalid-license OFL 1.1+ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. - final provides and requires are sane: $ rpm --requires -qp abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.noarch.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-3.fc15 $ rpm --requires -qp abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.src.rpm fontpackages-devel fontforge $ rpm --provides -qp abattis-cantarell-fonts-1.001-3.fc15.noarch.rpm config(abattis-cantarell-fonts) = 1.001-3.fc15 font(:lang=aa) font(:lang=af) font(:lang=an) font(:lang=ast) font(:lang=ay) font(:lang=bi) font(:lang=br) font(:lang=bs) font(:lang=ca) font(:lang=ch) font(:lang=co) font(:lang=crh) font(:lang=cs) font(:lang=csb) font(:lang=cy) font(:lang=da) font(:lang=de) font(:lang=en) font(:lang=eo) font(:lang=es) font(:lang=et) font(:lang=eu) font(:lang=fi) font(:lang=fil) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=fo) font(:lang=fr) font(:lang=fur) font(:lang=fy) font(:lang=ga) font(:lang=gd) font(:lang=gl) font(:lang=gv) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=hr) font(:lang=hsb) font(:lang=ht) font(:lang=hu) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=id) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=is) font(:lang=it) font(:lang=jv) font(:lang=ki) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=kl) font(:lang=ku-tr) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=la) font(:lang=lb) font(:lang=lg) font(:lang=li) font(:lang=lt) font(:lang=lv) font(:lang=mg) font(:lang=mh) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=mt) font(:lang=na) font(:lang=nb) font(:lang=nds) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nl) font(:lang=nn) font(:lang=no) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=nso) font(:lang=ny) font(:lang=oc) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=pap-an) font(:lang=pap-aw) font(:lang=pl) font(:lang=pt) font(:lang=rm) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sc) font(:lang=se) font(:lang=sg) font(:lang=sk) font(:lang=sl) font(:lang=sma) font(:lang=smj) font(:lang=smn) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=sq) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=su) font(:lang=sv) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=tk) font(:lang=tl) font(:lang=tn) font(:lang=tr) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=vo) font(:lang=vot) font(:lang=wa) font(:lang=wen) font(:lang=wo) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=yap) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(cantarell) abattis-cantarell-fonts = 1.001-3.fc15 SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs + Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version + check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. No GPLv3 is packaged in code. OPL 1.1 is mentioned but not which OPL (there are several) Looking at the source code there is no mention of the OPL I could find These files are made available under the GNU General Public License Version 3 or any later version, with an additional permission for embedding them in documents. Each source code file does mention the GPLv3 with font exception.
I've asked Dave Crossland (the font designer) to clarify the licensing -- he and I discussed this at length at FUDCon Zurich earlier this year with Spot, but just to make it clear for everyone involved, we'll have him mention it here.
Sorry guys, I do want to work on Cantarell and hope to do more this weekend. The licence is now SIL OFLv1.1, since Google asked me to switch, and using two licenses seems problematic to me.
Ok dave, once you update the fonts and license on the website we can proceed. Currently they are still saying GPLv3 with font exception only embedded in the font so it needs to be clarified (is it GPLv3 with font OR SIL-OPL, or SIL-OPL etc etc). Thanks
So, now Cantarell fonts moved to the GNOME infrastructure for releasing, bug tracking and version control. The font will be the GNOME 3 default, so it's now very important to have it packaged in Fedora. I created another updated SPEC file based on the new release, which you can find here SPEC: http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/cantarell-pkg/abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec SRPM: http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/cantarell-pkg/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm I am proposing as the package maintainer for this package.
(In reply to comment #17) > So, now Cantarell fonts moved to the GNOME infrastructure for releasing, bug > tracking and version control. The font will be the GNOME 3 default, so it's now > very important to have it packaged in Fedora. > > I created another updated SPEC file based on the new release, which you can > find here > > SPEC: > http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/cantarell-pkg/abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec > SRPM: > http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/cantarell-pkg/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm > > I am proposing as the package maintainer for this package. Cosimo, could you summarize what you have changed in the spec file? We have 3 spec files now from 3 people with 2 reviews. Nobody will be interested in doing another futile review. What we don't have is much/any time left, if this is supposed to make it to F15 (feature freeze today). I suppose an exception could be granted for a Gnome 3 dependency, though.
(In reply to comment #18) > > Cosimo, could you summarize what you have changed in the spec file? We have 3 > spec files now from 3 people with 2 reviews. Nobody will be interested in doing > another futile review. Of course! - as I mentioned previously, the font is now managed using the GNOME infrastructure, and released as versioned tarballs on our servers, in sync with the GNOME release cycle, so I changed the spec to fetch files from there. - the tarballs contains now both the source files for the font and the binary, there's no need for having multiple 'SourceX' entries in the spec file for each .sfd file, so I removed those. - the fontconfig file is now shipped inside the tarball too, so there's no need for having a separate Source entry for it. - the preferred binary format for this font is OTF now, as that's the format used by the binaries in the tarball too, so I changed the fontforge build lines to use that instead of TTF. - the upstream repository now removed the Oblique variants, so I removed those from this package. - the license of the font is now OFL-only, so I removed the reference to GPL in the spec. > What we don't have is much/any time left, if this is supposed to make it to F15 > (feature freeze today). I suppose an exception could be granted for a Gnome 3 > dependency, though. Yeah, I guess so, as this is a very important package.
Created attachment 477662 [details] Fix to make patch spec to pass reivew To speed this up am adding patch to get this done.
I'm glad to hear that Gnome is working w/ Dave Crossland on this, and that we're making progress on getting it packaged. I'm glad to defer to someone else's spec file -- heaven knows mine wasn't perfect. It looks like the sources on the GNOME infrastructure have the updated license text, so I don't see that as being a blocker any more.
[This review was done with the patch above so that the rpmlint would hush. The only rpmlint issues left were aspell not knowing how to spell words and COPYING not being Unix eol] Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our Fedoran dead. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1] [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-] PreReq is not used. [x] Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2] [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). [x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. [-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] Changelog in prescribed format. [x] Rpmlint output is silent. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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 %doc. [x] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [3,4] [x] Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : d47d1ade6e292d90fc5f345db1ee67e7 MD5SUM upstream package : d47d1ade6e292d90fc5f345db1ee67e7 [x] Compiler flags are appropriate. [-] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [-] Each %files section contains %defattr. [-] No %config files under /usr. [-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5] [-] Package contains a valid .desktop file. [-] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] File names are valid UTF-8. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Package contains no bundled libraries. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [x] Package contains no static executables. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] Package does not genrate any conflict. [x] Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] Package installs properly. [x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6] === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package functions as described. [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] SourceX is a working URL. [-] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-] %check is present and all tests pass. [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [?] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] Dist tag is present. [x] Spec use %global instead of %define. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] Man pages included for all executables. [x] Uses parallel make. [-] Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. === Issues === 1. With previous patch, rpmlint shows that packages work well. Font is viewable on EL6 and other systems === Final Notes === 1. Thanks for all the hard work.
Stephen, thanks for the spec patch. Here are updated URLs for the spec and the srpm, which should be good to go. SPEC: http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/cantarell-pkg/abattis-cantarell-fonts.spec SRPM: http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/cantarell-pkg/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.1-2.fc15.src.rpm
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: abattis-cantarell-fonts Short Description: Cantarell, a Humanist sans-serif font family Owners: cosimoc Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Is it possible to make this font available also for Fedora 13 and 14?
(In reply to comment #27) > Is it possible to make this font available also for Fedora 13 and 14? You can install the F15 rpm in F13 and F14 (or grab the source rpm and rebuild). With F15 having branched, requests for an F13 package should be submitted really soon (or it's too late).
Closing this report now that abattis-cantarell-fonts is available in repo.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: abattis-cantarell-fonts Branches: f16 f17 f18 devel InitialCC: fonts-sig I'd like the Fonts SIG to be notified of changes to this package in all active branches, including Rawhide.
Feel free to add yourself to the package CC, or request ACLs using Fedora PkgDB
Complete.