Bug 2402440

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9667296
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2402440-twr-mint-mono-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09667296-twr-mint-mono-fonts/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

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: "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "Unknown or generated". 8 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/twr-mint-mono-fonts/2402440-twr-mint-mono-
     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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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 fc-query on all fonts in package.
     Note: Cannot find fc-query command, install fontconfig package to make
     a comprehensive font review.
     See: url: undefined
[!]: 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


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: twr-mint-mono-35-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          twr-mint-mono-fonts-all-0.0.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          twr-mint-mono-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpdfz1aprs')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', 'Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace')
twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', '%description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace')
twr-mint-mono-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('monospace', 'Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace')
twr-mint-mono-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('monospace', '%description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace')
twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
twr-mint-mono-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 2.5 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2

twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', 'Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace')
twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('monospace', '%description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace')
twr-mint-mono-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation
twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yuru7/mint-mono/refs/heads/main/LICENSE :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3fc019a3c0fc4c106acd73d98797d45910bb1735b14885c5855d5353fa33f56d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3fc019a3c0fc4c106acd73d98797d45910bb1735b14885c5855d5353fa33f56d
https://github.com/yuru7/mint-mono/releases/download/v0.0.1/MintMono_v0.0.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : db024b5facab56ff342d2effecf8f780ce1c7f41be951679df71b204f0a36e51
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db024b5facab56ff342d2effecf8f780ce1c7f41be951679df71b204f0a36e51


Requires
--------
twr-mint-mono-35-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(twr-mint-mono-35-fonts)
    fontpackages-filesystem

twr-mint-mono-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    twr-mint-mono-35-fonts
    twr-mint-mono-fonts



Provides
--------
twr-mint-mono-35-fonts:
    config(twr-mint-mono-35-fonts)
    font(mintmono35)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.fedoraproject.twr-mint-mono-35-fonts.metainfo.xml)
    twr-mint-mono-35-fonts

twr-mint-mono-fonts-all:
    twr-mint-mono-fonts-all



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2402440
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, fonts
Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Perl, R, Ocaml, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) M-Plus fonts have a different license:
https://github.com/yuru7/mint-mono/blob/main/source/circle-mplus-1m/LICENSE_E.txt
but it seems compatible with relicensing derived works.
b) Please ask upstream to package the license file in releases
c) Approved
d) Review of one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401972
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399993
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2386164
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402458
would be appreciated if time allows.

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

Thank you for your quick review. the package has been imported and built.

FEDORA-2025-b7a1a9db0e (twr-mint-mono-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b7a1a9db0e

FEDORA-2025-67ba88e96a has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-67ba88e96a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-67ba88e96a

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

FEDORA-2025-97f1b623b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-97f1b623b2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-97f1b623b2

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

FEDORA-2025-b7a1a9db0e has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b7a1a9db0e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b7a1a9db0e

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

FEDORA-2025-b7a1a9db0e (twr-mint-mono-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-97f1b623b2 (twr-mint-mono-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-67ba88e96a (twr-mint-mono-fonts-0.0.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.