Bug 1079090
Summary: | Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mohammed Isam <mohammed_isam1984> | ||||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jonathan Dieter <jdieter> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | empateinfinito, fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, jdieter, package-review, panemade | ||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | jdieter:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Fixed In Version: | layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
Last Closed: | 2015-10-18 23:48:55 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: | |||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Mohammed Isam
2014-03-21 00:38:36 UTC
1. Are you going to support EPEL5? If not remove these: Group: User Interface/X BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) rm -fr %{buildroot} in %install %clean section %defattr(0664,root,root,0755) 2. install -D man/man1/layla.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/layla.1 missing -p option again. 3. install -D info/layla.info %{buildroot}%{_infodir}/layla.info (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > 1. Are you going to support EPEL5? > > If not remove these: > > Group: User Interface/X > > BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > > rm -fr %{buildroot} in %install > > %clean section > > %defattr(0664,root,root,0755) > > 2. install -D man/man1/layla.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/layla.1 > > missing -p option again. > > 3. install -D info/layla.info %{buildroot}%{_infodir}/layla.info 1. No, not supporting EPEL5. Edited the spec file as noted. 2. & 3. Added the -p otion. Spec file is updated. Please review. Added font wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Layla_fonts Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Any review for this request please? Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Added a koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7159906 Are you still interested in having this reviewed? (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #8) > Are you still interested in having this reviewed? Definitely! This will be wonderful. Thanx a lot man. Hello Mohammed i hope that my info can be useful, well you have this issues Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-thuluth-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-boxer-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-common-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm layla-koufi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-thuluth-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-boxer-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-ruqaa-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-basic-arabic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-fonts-common.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/layla.1.gz layla-fonts-common.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/info/layla.info.gz layla-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) arabic -> Arabic layla-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US arabic -> Arabic 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. The W: no-documentation warning is because the GPL license is missing, please create a GPL.txt file and later copy the license into this. Now, add the GPL+.txt to the layla-fonts folder and later compress this. For solved the :W spelling-error please change "arabic" to "Arabic" in your Summary and the %description in the spec file. About the W: spurious-executable warning please read this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint#spurious-executable-perm I hope my english can be understandable. Regards from Chile Thanx a lot Carlos I corrected the no-documentation warnings (I added %files sections for each package), and the exec problem, and the arabic is now Arabic! Thanx Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Mohammed, please check you spec file look this: Version: 1.1 change to: Version: 1.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- look this: %changelog * Wed Jul 16 2014 Mohammed Isam <mohammed_isam1984> 1.1-1 - Updated info and manpages add to changelog: %changelog * Fri Feb 06 2015 Mohammed Isam <mohammed_isam1984> 1.2-1 - Fix and update the spec file ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you see your *.srpm have 1.2 version and the spec file have 1.1 version. Regards :) Mohammad, the problem is that the spec link still points to the old spec file. I've downloaded the srpm and run some preliminary checks. Thanks for fixing the items Carlos listed, but you also have %files being listed twice for each subpackage because %_font_pkg automatically creates a %files section for a font. (In reply to Carlos Morel-Riquelme from comment #13) > Mohammed, please check you spec file > > look this: > Version: 1.1 > > change to: > Version: 1.2 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Carlos, this is my mistake. I uploaded the new spec file, but google didn't update the old file, instead it saved a new copy and reserved the old one. I fixed it. The link points to the correct file now. (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #14) > Mohammad, the problem is that the spec link still points to the old spec > file. I've downloaded the srpm and run some preliminary checks. Thanks for > fixing the items Carlos listed, but you also have %files being listed twice > for each subpackage because %_font_pkg automatically creates a %files > section for a font. Hi Jonathan I am a little perplexed here. If I remove the %files sections, rpmbuild complains about finding (Installed but unpackaged files) and terminates in error. Still, it is working with the current spec file, how is it possible? Furthermore, when I run (rpm -qpl) on the font packages, it lists the files correctly (with no repeated files). Should I remove the %files sections from my spec? If yes, how to solve the rpmbuild panic error? Rpmlint ------- Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-thuluth-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-boxer-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-common-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 108: second %files layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 114: second %files layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 120: second %files layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 126: second %files layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 132: second %files 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings. it's strange because in the past this errors don't exists, please compare the old spec file with the new spec file. Other idea is that is errors have relation with that johathan says. Regards (In reply to Mohammed Isam from comment #16) > (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #14) > > Mohammad, the problem is that the spec link still points to the old spec > > file. I've downloaded the srpm and run some preliminary checks. Thanks for > > fixing the items Carlos listed, but you also have %files being listed twice > > for each subpackage because %_font_pkg automatically creates a %files > > section for a font. > > Hi Jonathan > I am a little perplexed here. If I remove the %files sections, rpmbuild > complains about finding (Installed but unpackaged files) and terminates in > error. Still, it is working with the current spec file, how is it possible? > Furthermore, when I run (rpm -qpl) on the font packages, it lists the files > correctly (with no repeated files). Should I remove the %files sections from > my spec? If yes, how to solve the rpmbuild panic error? The problem is that the manpages aren't packaged by %_font_pkg but are listed in the %files sections. I would suggest dropping both the man and info pages as they're really not necessary for a font. I checked a couple of other Fedora fonts and they don't contain man or info pages. If you remove the man and info pages, then you can also remove all of the %files sections except -common (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #18) > The problem is that the manpages aren't packaged by %_font_pkg but are > listed in the %files sections. I would suggest dropping both the man and > info pages as they're really not necessary for a font. I checked a couple > of other Fedora fonts and they don't contain man or info pages. > > If you remove the man and info pages, then you can also remove all of the > %files sections except -common Ok. I removed the man pages & the info files. Links are updated accordingly. Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm NB: I had to bump the NVR as I removed the info & mans from the source pkg. Hi mohammed The fedora-review give me again the warning of documentation Rpmlint ------- Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-thuluth-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-boxer-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-common-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.src.rpm layla-koufi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-thuluth-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-boxer-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-ruqaa-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-basic-arabic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the tree of the layla-fonts in the srpm [empateinfinito@localhost layla-fonts-1.3]$ tree . ├── Authors ├── ChangeLog ├── confs │ ├── 67-layla-BasicArabic.conf │ ├── 67-layla-Boxer.conf │ ├── 67-layla-Koufi.conf │ ├── 67-layla-Ruqaa.conf │ └── 67-layla-Thuluth.conf ├── COPYING ├── GPL.txt ├── LaylaBasicArabic.ttf ├── LaylaBoxer.ttf ├── layla-fonts-1.3.tar.gz ├── LaylaKoufi.ttf ├── LaylaRuqaa.ttf ├── LaylaThuluth.ttf └── README 1 directory, 16 files [empateinfinito@localhost layla-fonts-1.3]$ 1) It's strange because the documentation is here :/ 2) layla-fonts-1.3.tar.gz is void ? (In reply to Carlos Morel-Riquelme from comment #22) > Hi mohammed > The fedora-review give me again the warning of documentation <snip> > 1) It's strange because the documentation is here :/ > > 2) layla-fonts-1.3.tar.gz is void ? The documentation is there for the -common subpackage, it just doesn't get included for each individual font. This follows the precedent set by other fonts in Fedora. $ rpm -ql liberation-fonts-common-1.07.4-4.fc21.noarch /etc/X11/fontpath.d/liberation-fonts /usr/share/appdata/liberation.metainfo.xml /usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common /usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/COPYING /usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/License.txt /usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/README /usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/TODO /usr/share/fonts/liberation /usr/share/fonts/liberation/fonts.dir /usr/share/fonts/liberation/fonts.scale $ rpm -ql liberation-mono-fonts-1.07.4-4.fc21.noarch /etc/fonts/conf.d/59-liberation-mono.conf /usr/share/appdata/liberation-mono.metainfo.xml /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/59-liberation-mono.conf /usr/share/fonts/liberation /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Bold.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-BoldItalic.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Italic.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Regular.ttf Note that the -mono subpackage in the Liberation fonts has no documentation. This warning can be ignored. Carlos, are you wanting to do this review? If not, I'll go ahead and do the full review. If you're looking for experience in reviewing packages, I'll happily let you take the lead on this and just look over your shoulder. Hello jonathan please take the control, i'm a newbie in reviews so i've will very happy to learn about this review and also of your knowledge. my best regards from Chile :) (In reply to Carlos Morel-Riquelme from comment #25) > Hello jonathan please take the control, i'm a newbie in reviews so i've will > very happy to learn about this review and also of your knowledge. > > my best regards from Chile :) Many thanx 4 u both. I appreciate it. Carlos, We don't want to duplicate documentation(license) files when one of the sub-package installs it and base (or any other) package needs this sub-package. In this case we get only one copy of documentation files from sub-package. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing So, when any of layla-*-fonts sub-package we install, as we have written Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} layla-common will also get installed which will give us documentation files. We can then ignore rpmlint message "no-documentation". (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #27) > So, when any of layla-*-fonts sub-package we install, as we have written > Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} > layla-common will also get installed which will give us documentation files. > > We can then ignore rpmlint message "no-documentation". Thanx man. It was really confusing in the start but I think this clears everything up nicely! Rpmlint ------- Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm layla-thuluth-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm layla-boxer-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-common-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm layla-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.src.rpm layla-koufi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-thuluth-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-boxer-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-ruqaa-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation layla-basic-arabic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- layla-basic-arabic-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(layla-basic-arabic-fonts) layla-fonts-common layla-koufi-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(layla-koufi-fonts) layla-fonts-common layla-ruqaa-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(layla-ruqaa-fonts) layla-fonts-common layla-boxer-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(layla-boxer-fonts) layla-fonts-common layla-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): layla-thuluth-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(layla-thuluth-fonts) layla-fonts-common Provides -------- layla-basic-arabic-fonts: config(layla-basic-arabic-fonts) font(laylabasicarabic) layla-basic-arabic-fonts layla-koufi-fonts: config(layla-koufi-fonts) font(:lang=ar) font(laylakoufi) layla-koufi-fonts layla-ruqaa-fonts: config(layla-ruqaa-fonts) font(:lang=ar) font(laylaruqaa) layla-ruqaa-fonts layla-boxer-fonts: config(layla-boxer-fonts) font(:lang=ar) font(laylaboxer) layla-boxer-fonts layla-fonts-common: layla-fonts-common layla-thuluth-fonts: config(layla-thuluth-fonts) font(laylathuluth) layla-thuluth-fonts Source checksums ---------------- http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0217e7fb48e34057488b267ef17aa91fbb9e97b2bda52e6a8ccf7f06020df422 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0217e7fb48e34057488b267ef17aa91fbb9e97b2bda52e6a8ccf7f06020df422 Created attachment 989702 [details]
ttname.log
Created attachment 989703 [details]
repo-font-audit.log
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts, /etc/fonts/conf.d, /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail, /usr/share/fontconfig, /etc/fonts Please add Requires: fontpackages-filesystem to the -common subpackage [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Package license and license included in tarball is GPLv3+, but, according to ttname.log, licenses in ttf files are all SIL OFL 1.1. Since you're also upstream for this package, I'd recommend sticking with SIL OFL 1.1. [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 file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see comment #29). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. fonts: [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. layla-koufi, layla-boxer and layla-thuluth are missing some glyphs in the Arabic block. This is not a blocker, but it would be nice to have this fixed. Note: full results in attached repo-font-audit.log. [x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: ttname analyze results in attached ttname.log. (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #35) > Package Review > ============== > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts, > /etc/fonts/conf.d, /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail, > /usr/share/fontconfig, /etc/fonts > > Please add Requires: fontpackages-filesystem to the -common subpackage > I added the Requires line to the spec. I don't need to add the individual ownerships to the %files directory, do I? > [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > > Note: %defattr present but not needed Not fixed. Honestly I don't get it. My %files section doesn't contain any %defattr? > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Package license and license included in tarball is GPLv3+, but, > according > to ttname.log, licenses in ttf files are all SIL OFL 1.1. Since you're > also upstream for this package, I'd recommend sticking with SIL OFL 1.1. > Added the OFL license file (actually, three files according to the OFL directions). Removed the GPL file and updated the License field in the spec. Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20.src.rpm ===== MUST items ===== [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. This is fixed now. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Apologies! This was brought up by fedora-review and I took it at its word. I assume that the %_font_pkg macro uses %defattr. Either way, feel free to ignore this. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Looks good! ===== EXTRA items ===== [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. layla-koufi, layla-boxer and layla-thuluth are missing some glyphs in the Arabic block. This *isn't* a blocker, but if you could keep it in mind (or just tell me that repo-font-audit doesn't know what it's talking about) that would be great. Note: full results in attached repo-font-audit.log. This package is APPROVED! (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #38) > > [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. > > layla-koufi, layla-boxer and layla-thuluth are missing some glyphs in > the Arabic block. This *isn't* a blocker, but if you could keep it in mind > (or just tell me that repo-font-audit doesn't know what it's talking about) > that would be great. > Yep. Some glyphs are missing (Latin ones), but as the font is mainly covering the Arabic range, all the important glyphs for correct Arabic display are included. This is going to be fixed in the next releases. (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #39) > This package is APPROVED! Thanx a lot Jonathan :) New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: layla-fonts Short Description: A collection of traditional Arabic fonts Upstream URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam/layla-fonts Owners: mohammedisam Branches: f20 f21 f22 el5 el6 epel7 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7 layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6 layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20 layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21 layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0912c62798 layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-82c7240959 layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fe27a4fb6b layla-fonts-1.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1ef24fcd30 layla-fonts-1.5-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e36655974d layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update layla-fonts' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fe27a4fb6b layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update layla-fonts' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-82c7240959 layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update layla-fonts' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0912c62798 layla-fonts-1.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update layla-fonts' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e36655974d layla-fonts-1.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update layla-fonts' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1ef24fcd30 layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. layla-fonts-1.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. layla-fonts-1.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |