Bug 318191
| Summary: | Review Request: paktype-fonts - Fonts for Arabic from PakType | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rahul Bhalerao <b.rahul.pm> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | eng-i18n-bugs, fedora-package-review, notting, petersen, tagoh |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | i18n |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-10-17 07:56:22 UTC | 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
Rahul Bhalerao
2007-10-04 12:55:39 UTC
we don't need fonts.cache-1 file. Remove it and submit updated package. unable to verify source integrity as URL https://sourceforge.net/projects/paktype/ showed some other source files and SRPM contains paktype-20061222.tar.gz Is this Red Hat maintained upstream? If yes then specify in SPEC file. If 20061222 is our versioning of the source, then I suggest changing the tarball versioning to be closer to the original upstream version(s). I think we cannot directly use the upstream tarballs since they have multiple zip file separate license files instead of one tarball containing everything. Also the two fonts included here are having different versions. This may be a reason for having our own maintained tarball but use of 20061222 is not clear enough. Spec URL: <http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/paktype-fonts/paktype-fonts.spec> SRPM URL: <http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/paktype-fonts/paktype-fonts-2.0-2.fc8.src.rpm> Should we use upstream Source or internal tarballs? I think our own tarball until our fixes are merged upstream. rpmlint gave me paktype-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/paktype-fonts-2.0/PakTypeNaqsh-readme.txt The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile for example using iconv(1). use iconv command. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM but NOT for RPM. paktype-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/paktype-fonts-2.0/PakTypeNaqsh-readme.txt This can be ignored as iconv is failing to convert this document. + source files match upstream url cd75bd7fa714f307d25407a61f8bc43c paktype-20061222.tar.gz + 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. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %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. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: paktype-fonts Short Description: Fonts for Arabic from PakType Owners: rbhalera Branches: devel InitialCC: petersen Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. Hmm probably my fault but I think we should have moved to the upstream releases. :( |