Bug 1181726
| Summary: | Merge Review Request: dejavu-fonts - DejaVu fonts | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Parag Nemade <pnemade> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jens Petersen <petersen> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, nicolas.mailhot, package-review, petersen, redhat-bugzilla |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | petersen:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | dejavu-fonts-2.33-6.el5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-02-26 19:04:22 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: | 1181725 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1177946, 1181674 | ||
|
Description
Parag Nemade
2015-01-13 16:37:32 UTC
I can take this. I haven't looked into what caused fontpackages got deprecated - it is obviously a core fonts devel package. I wonder if a review of the EPEL package deprecation process would also be appropriate? (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #1) > I haven't looked into what caused fontpackages > got deprecated I believe this was due to rpmdevtools getting deprecated for some reason, but I am not sure why that happened. Now that fontpackages is in EPEL testing, can we proceed here? Just noting for the record, as a reminder, that RHEL5 ships with dejavu-lgc-fonts 2.10. (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #3) > Now that fontpackages is in EPEL testing, can we proceed here? Yes, I just got back from travel to devconf.cz and have setup a new RHEL5 guest for this. Successful koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8949005 Rpmlint output: dejavu-fonts.src:300: W: non-break-space line 300, char 19 dejavu-fonts.src:304: W: non-break-space line 304, char 21 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. dejavu-serif-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-serif dejavu-serif-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Monospace -> Mono space, Mono-space, Aerospace dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-sans-mono dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. dejavu-sans-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-sans dejavu-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Monospace -> Mono space, Mono-space, Aerospace dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-sans-mono dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-doc dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-compat dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-serif dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. dejavu-lgc-sans-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code dejavu-lgc-sans-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-sans dejavu-lgc-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Also for reference the previous and only koji el5 build was: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=355715 Since we don't have an original review for dejavu-fonts in Fedora I think we can also treat this as a "Merge Review": so I think I am thinking I will review both the epel5 and latest fedora package. Though maybe the Merge Review is more meaningful. Isn't the referenced mailing list thread of bug #159474 the initial review? (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #9) > Isn't the referenced mailing list thread of bug #159474 the initial review? Okay thanks but that was a FE review I think. Okay, sorry for the delay I was busy with some other things. Here is a review of dejavu-fonts-2.34-4.fc22.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=586265 (2014-10-17) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/dejavu-fonts See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names This is a Merge review. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in dejavu-fonts/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. I think this is needed. Probably good to note too that the "Arev Fonts Copyright" is also a Bitstream Vera license? [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required This package is also for EPEL 5. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 7 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. fonts: [x]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: repo-font-audit analyze results in review-dejavu-fonts/fonts directory. [x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dejavu-fonts-common-2.34-4.fc22.noarch.rpm dejavu-fonts-2.34-4.fc22.src.rpm dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-compat dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-doc dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat dejavu-fonts.src:319: W: non-break-space line 319, char 19 dejavu-fonts.src:323: W: non-break-space line 323, char 21 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) [partial] ---------------------------- dejavu-sans-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-sans dejavu-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. dejavu-serif-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-serif dejavu-serif-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Monospace -> Mono space, Mono-space, Aerospace dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-sans-mono dejavu-sans-mono-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-compat dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-doc dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- dejavu-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- dejavu-fonts-common: dejavu-fonts-common Source checksums ---------------- Using local file dejavu-sans.metainfo.xml as upstream dejavu-sans.metainfo.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d8132bc5e0f0c935374eaedf17230194b41cced96622e22074395d89e0d41bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d8132bc5e0f0c935374eaedf17230194b41cced96622e22074395d89e0d41bf Using local file dejavu-sans-mono.metainfo.xml as upstream dejavu-sans-mono.metainfo.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58fabcad46762bb3a977087778287848331ce6ffd5e8d43af5ea86b4ff66f1a1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58fabcad46762bb3a977087778287848331ce6ffd5e8d43af5ea86b4ff66f1a1 http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dejavu/dejavu-fonts-2.34.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5ca9e671635a9fe04c791cdc82c707ba57380c2cc8de3f92451a039134b9027 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5ca9e671635a9fe04c791cdc82c707ba57380c2cc8de3f92451a039134b9027 Using local file dejavu.metainfo.xml as upstream dejavu.metainfo.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c4e7767ace36acd72b370f021b611f5febfa05a78ce84bad6c6dea1a08d4f63 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c4e7767ace36acd72b370f021b611f5febfa05a78ce84bad6c6dea1a08d4f63 Using local file dejavu-serif.metainfo.xml as upstream dejavu-serif.metainfo.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a29a3ab1a99afce78d3429ac01ff210f27f5359ca98dbaeb1288fee8017177a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a29a3ab1a99afce78d3429ac01ff210f27f5359ca98dbaeb1288fee8017177a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -p -n dejavu-fonts Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG My understanding from the LICENSE file: # original bitstream glyphs are Bitstream Vera # glyphs modifications by dejavu project are Public Domain # glyphs imported from Arev fonts are under BitStream Vera compatible license Jens, Thanks for taking time and finding this licensing information. I will add above 3 lines above License tag. Here is a similar review of dejavu-fonts-2.33-5.el5: The package is basically identical to dejavu-fonts-2.33-4.el5 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=355715 (ie the last build before it got removed from epel5.) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1181726-dejavu-fonts/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Ditto above - comments should be added. [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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 7 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: EPEL5: Package does run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: Explicit BuildRoot: tag as required by EPEL5 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. fonts: [x]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: repo-font-audit analyze results in /home/petersen/pkgreview/1181726 -dejavu-fonts/fonts directory. [x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dejavu-fonts-common-2.33-5.fc21.noarch.rpm dejavu-fonts-2.33-5.fc21.src.rpm dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-compat dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-doc dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat dejavu-fonts.src:300: W: non-break-space line 300, char 19 dejavu-fonts.src:304: W: non-break-space line 304, char 21 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: (fedora-review error) [fedora-review listing dejavu-fonts-common for me:] Requires -------- dejavu-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- dejavu-fonts-common: dejavu-fonts-common Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dejavu/dejavu-fonts-2.33.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bc60143be7adf8868d9233ae0f0a0c1b38b3bdd23529859dfdca7b3374cba082 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bc60143be7adf8868d9233ae0f0a0c1b38b3bdd23529859dfdca7b3374cba082 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1181726 -D EPEL5 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, BATCH, DISTTAG Package is APPROVED (merge review and EPEL5 re-review) provided the multi-license comments are added. dejavu-fonts-2.33-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dejavu-fonts-2.33-5.el5 dejavu-fonts-2.33-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Uhm, just taking the package to have it retired it again after 2 months is not that how it IMHO should work :-( https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2015-March/010968.html Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dejavu-fonts New Branches: el5 Owners: robert InitialCC: fonts-sig i18n-team I think this package change request is required for unretiring, because I can not do anything on the package in pkgdb. dejavu-fonts-2.33-6.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dejavu-fonts-2.33-6.el5 Already complete. dejavu-fonts-2.33-6.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. |