Bug 1368611

can take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366841 for me ?

%install
rm -fr %{buildroot} Please, remove

%clean
rm -fr %{buildroot} Please, remove

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> can take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366841 for me ?
Done.

Here is the updated files with fixes
Spec URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/typetype-molot-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-2.fc24.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

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



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[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.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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:
[?]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
     Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-1.fc26.src.rpm
typetype-molot-fonts.src: W: invalid-license Freeware
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------


Provides
--------


Source checksums
----------------
https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/download/Molot/Molot.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c72e1f00242210c1fc0730cb7dd86890242db43fc5c381db36f80ef75f6d1bbe
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a435751e8259ce4797919391010f56b0804d7cd88db64d9f6d70a274af3debcb
However, diff -r shows no differences


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1368611 --plugins fonts -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Issues:

[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.

[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.

[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

i can not determine if this package is importable in Fedora. I recommend asking for the help of FE-Legal @ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
sorry for the inconvenience

Created attachment 1192521 [details]
typetype-molot-fonts license

and typetype-molot-fonts.src: W: invalid-license Freeware

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)

> 
> i can not determine if this package is importable in Fedora. I recommend
> asking for the help of FE-Legal @
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
> sorry for the inconvenience

That will be unnecessary. Upstream changed the license to SIL OFL on their website. http://typetype.ru/free-fonts/

Here is the updated files with fixes
Spec URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/typetype-molot-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-3.fc24.src.rpm

Here is the latest updated files with change on source packaged fonts and the license to SIL OFL

Spec URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/typetype-molot-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc24.src.rpm

Would you like continue reviewing the spec file as the requested update is done?

(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #11)
> Would you like continue reviewing the spec file as the requested update is
> done?

Approved

Thank you gil!

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/typetype-molot-fonts

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3921b56471

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-baf7b45e07

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4bb5b0a8f2

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ab0b9fbe60

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4bb5b0a8f2

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3921b56471

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-baf7b45e07

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ab0b9fbe60

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.