Bug 2374402

Summary:	Review Request: bbox-fira-fonts - Fira is a new set of sans-serif fonts which focuses on legibility.
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Mateus Rodrigues Costa <mateusrodcosta>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Sergio Correia <scorreia>
Status:	NEW ---	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	package-review, scorreia
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	scorreia: fedora-review?
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	---
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:		Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Mateus Rodrigues Costa 2025-06-23 21:08:45 UTC

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/bbox-fira-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/09201707-bbox-fira-sans-fonts/bbox-fira-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/bbox-fira-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/09201707-bbox-fira-sans-fonts/bbox-fira-sans-fonts-4.301-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: Originally designed to integrate with the character of Firefox OS, Fira is a new set of sans-serif fonts which focuses on legibility.
Fedora Account System Username: mateusrodcosta

---

This is a rename for mozilla-fira-sans-fonts, more info about the rationale for that can be found at issue 2308744.

Comment 1 Mateus Rodrigues Costa 2025-06-23 21:14:50 UTC

A few notes:

I plan to split the packages as follow:
* The spec will be called "bbox-fira-fonts" (I'm having issue with this)
* Sans and Mono will be "bbox-fira-sans-fonts" and "bbox-fira-mono-fonts" respectively
* Doc and all could be "bbox-fira-fonts-doc" and "bbox-fira-fonts-all" (I am not worrying too much about this)

I had issues with the %setup macro so I am using unzip manually. I also had issues with setting up OFL.txt for the license, so I ended with two copies.
The Obsoletes and Provides should be fine, as required for the rename.

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 15:42:08 UTC

Hello,
I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been
reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package
builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer.

If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my
apologies, feel free to close it.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 15:42:20 UTC

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.