Bug 1005518

Summary: Review Request: junicode-fonts - Unicode font for medievalists
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Sean Burke <leftmostcat>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: fonts-bugs, i, leftmostcat, panemade, samuel-rhbugs
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-08-16 06:57:10 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Sean Burke 2013-09-07 23:36:37 UTC
Spec URL: http://leftmostcat.fedorapeople.org/junicode-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://leftmostcat.fedorapeople.org/junicode-fonts-0.7.8-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: A serif font with broad Unicode coverage for medievalists
Fedora Account System Username: leftmostcat

Comment 1 Christopher Meng 2013-09-08 01:55:48 UTC
1. Remove rm -fr %{buildroot} in %install

2. Remove %clean section

3. Make should be with smp flags if possible.(parallel build)

Comment 2 Sean Burke 2013-09-08 02:56:49 UTC
I have updated the spec and SRPM accordingly. I have also uploaded a patch, available at http://leftmostcat.fedorapeople.org/junicode-0.7.8-fix-font-path.patch, which fixes some issues in the build that I had missed earlier.

Comment 3 Jamie Nguyen 2013-09-09 11:05:12 UTC
Hi Sean! DISCLAIMER: I'm not a sponsor.

It's good practice to bump the Release tag and add a new %changelog entry when fixing things in your spec/srpm, and then post new links to your spec/srpm. Reviewers can then compare junicode-fonts-0.7.8-1 and junicode-fonts-0.7.8-2, or glance at %changelog to see how the spec has progressed.

I'm not that familiar with font packaging, but the package looks good to me. 

rpmlint returns no warnings:

  $ rpmlint *.rpm
  2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Metadata appears correct:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Licensing_Information_in_Metadata

Good luck finding a sponsor!

Comment 4 Sean Burke 2013-09-09 15:31:52 UTC
Thank you for the feedback. If desired, I can return the linked files to the first revision and provide new links for the new versions.

Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2013-12-05 08:05:30 UTC
Have you found a sponsor yet?

Comment 6 Paul Flo Williams 2013-12-05 15:25:20 UTC
Please consider adding

BuildRequires: ttfautohint

The Makefile looks for this but doesn't complain if it isn't found.

Comment 7 Christopher Meng 2014-02-20 08:46:03 UTC
Hi,

Any news here?

Thanks.

Comment 8 Sean Burke 2014-02-21 06:07:27 UTC
I've updated the spec to require ttfautohint and to fix the build when it is used, as its options have changed since the Makefile was last updated.

Spec URL: http://leftmostcat.fedorapeople.org/junicode-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://leftmostcat.fedorapeople.org/junicode-fonts-0.7.8-2.fc20.src.rpm

I have not yet found a sponsor. I will attempt to do so.

Comment 9 Christopher Meng 2014-02-21 06:14:54 UTC
Yes, I hope you can find a sponsor quickly:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

Comment 10 Parag AN(पराग) 2015-07-22 08:18:32 UTC
I have not see any activity by the submitter using his FAS in datagrepper output in Fedora project.

Sean,
 you still want to continue packaging of this?