Bug 290581

We don't need following lines in SPEC
touch $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/fonts/nepali/fonts.cache-1
%ghost %verify(not md5 size mtime) %{_datadir}/fonts/nepali/fonts.cache-1

Change summary from
Summary: Font for Nepali
to
Summary: Font for Nepali language

Change
cp *.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/fonts/nepali
to
cp -p *.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/fonts/nepali
This will preserve file timestamp.

Do we need to change license to
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException?

I don't think we can add a Font Exception without upstream agreeing first.
Feel free to request/ask them about that though.

There is no need to define madan_version just use version instead.
Also -n argument can be dropped from %setup I think.

Please define fontdir to %{_datadir}/fonts/madan say and use that
instead of %{_datadir}/fonts/nepali.

Otherwise it looks ok to me.

Is there an upstream URL for the source.

Only upstream URL for source is found to be this:
http://www.nepalinux.org/fonts/Madan.ttf

Found one more URL to the same file:
http://madanpuraskar.org/detail_guide/fonts/Madan.ttf
But there is no tarball available. Also the license mentioned is GPL only,
nothing about exception.

Ah ok, I see you generated the tarball yourself.

Probably it is better just to use Madan.ttf as the source then IMHO.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Also the license mentioned is GPL only, nothing about exception.

Then I think it will just have to be plain GPL.

IMHO, %{_datadir}/fonts/nepali should not be changed to %{_datadir}/fonts/madan.
This may give rise to too many per font directories in /usr/share/fonts. Also
keeping fonts as language wise collection sounds better.

Hmm I think I tend to disagree, from the point of view of %catalog (I think
you maybe need a symlink for that too?) and fc-cache having distinct directories
is cleaner and avoids problems with sharing of directories.

Updated spec and srpm available here:
Spec URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts-1.0-2.fc8.src.rpm

Please review again. 

Updated spec again to use LICENSE file properly.
Spec URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts-1.0-3.fc8.src.rpm

I think this package is ready for official review.
Jens,
 Do you see anything missing in this package?

Some comments:

- I think "Requires(post): fontconfig" should be removed -
see the recent mails from mclasen and mailhot on fedora-packaging.

- please URLs for the .ttf and LICENSE file

- "cp -p %{SOURCE1} ." should be move to %prep

- still wondering if we should add %catalogue but I don't think that is a blocker

Otherwise looks ok to me. :)

Updated again:
Spec URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts-1.0-4.fc8.src.rpm

If there is no upstream license file then we can't include it.
Running strings on the .ttf file shows:

Open Type rules and Nepali glyphsets developed at Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya and
released under GPL. 
Contacts: 
Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya
Yalamaya Kendra, Patan, NEPAL
GPO Box. 42
www.mpp.org.np
info.np
Font Developers: 
Gaurav Shrestha 
Anjan Ale

Have we confirmed with the authors that it is intended to be GPLv2?

Created attachment 209621 [details]
madan-fonts.spec-1.patch

some more recommended cleanup

Updated:
Spec URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts-1.0-5.fc8.src.rpm

Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream url
6046ef235c9c9e61b1c4e67e3027298b  madan.ttf
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ font is open source-compatible.
- License text is NOT included in package.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ fonts scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI App.
APPROVED.

ohh. Just found that provided SPEC in comment #16 is missing %prep while
reviewing  this package I have it already added on my system so mock build went
fine.

Rahul,
 you missed comment #12

and similarly SOURCE md5sum is also wrong in my review post. It should be read as
d78a34b1d46dcfa74ff64e78dcc1fc31  Madan.ttf

Parag,
I see %prep is present in SPEC provided in comment 16, but only empty. The
license file is no more provided with this package since upstream does not
provide the one. What exactly did I miss in comment 12?

sure.
Mock build gave me
+ install -m 0644 -p '*.ttf'
/var/tmp/madan-fonts-1.0-5.fc8-root-mockbuild/usr/share/fonts/madan
install: cannot stat `*.ttf': No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.47557 (%install)

This mean you missed to add in %prep
cp -p %{SOURCE0} .

Empty %prep mean above install command will not find which *.ttf file to install.

Empty %prep will successfully run rpmbuild on SPEC outside mock. But when built
in mock it failed.

(In reply to comment #20)
> Parag,
> I see %prep is present in SPEC provided in comment 16, but only empty. The
> license file is no more provided with this package since upstream does not
> provide the one. What exactly did I miss in comment 12?

I missed to say that replace SOURCE1 with SOURCE0 and add that line in %prep.

Updated:
Spec URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/madan-fonts/madan-fonts-1.0-6.fc8.src.rpm

Re-APPROVED above SRPM.
you can now request CVS branches.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: madan-fonts
Short Description: Font for Nepali language
Owners: rbhalera
Branches: devel
InitialCC: petersen
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

I think strictly the License should be noted as GPL (as mentioned in comment 6)
since no version information is provided in the distribution.
So better to fix that before importing to cvs, IMHO.

I hope upstream will include a license file in a future release.