Bug 2180242

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

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



===== 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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open
     Font License", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 3 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/leland-fonts/2180242-leland-
     fonts/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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 %license.
[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]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %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: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package
     to make a comprehensive font review.
     See: url: undefined
[!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
     Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a
     comprehensive font review.
     See: url: undefined


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: leland-fonts-0.77-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          leland-text-fonts-0.77-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          leland-fonts-all-0.77-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          leland-fonts-0.77-1.fc38.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpm__v4cqp')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

leland-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 3

leland-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/MuseScoreFonts/Leland/archive/v0.77/Leland-0.77.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3c7b80220638f380c478468a935bb9f19f2b9e8c9874f32a93476d7c432e3fe0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c7b80220638f380c478468a935bb9f19f2b9e8c9874f32a93476d7c432e3fe0


Requires
--------
leland-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(leland-fonts)
    fontpackages-filesystem

leland-text-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(leland-text-fonts)
    fontpackages-filesystem

leland-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    leland-fonts
    leland-text-fonts



Provides
--------
leland-fonts:
    config(leland-fonts)
    font(leland)
    leland-fonts
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.musescore.leland-fonts.metainfo.xml)

leland-text-fonts:
    config(leland-text-fonts)
    font(lelandtext)
    leland-text-fonts
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.musescore.leland-text-fonts.metainfo.xml)
    mscore-leland-fonts

leland-fonts-all:
    leland-fonts-all



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2180242 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, fonts, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Java, Ruby, SugarActivity, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) Would be good if upstream used a registered foundry name, but not strictly required.
b) Approved.

Thank you again for the review!  It would be nice if they would register a foundry name, yes.

Let me know if you need something else reviewed.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/leland-fonts

FEDORA-2023-33edff98fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-33edff98fe

FEDORA-2023-33edff98fe has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3

FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.