Spec URL: sharpfont.spec SRPM URL: <srpm info here> Description: Cross-platform FreeType bindings Fedora Account System Username: raphgro This is just a place holder for an upcoming package request. URL: https://github.com/Robmaister/SharpFont
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/games:openra/sharpfont might help you.
(In reply to Matthias Mailänder from comment #1) > https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/games:openra/sharpfont might help > you. We hit an issue with 4.5.2: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/154 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34137835/import-libraries-error-with-mono-on-ubuntu-15-04
raphgro's scratch build of sharpfont-3.0.1-1.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13201149
SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/sharpfont.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/sharpfont-3.0.1-1.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13201149 => FTBFS
SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/sharpfont.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/sharpfont-3.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14130054
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1279087-sharpfont/licensecheck.txt These files are without license header: SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/ExampleForm.Designer.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/ExampleForm.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Forms/LabeledToolStripComboBox.Designer.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Forms/LabeledToolStripComboBox.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/SharpFont/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs Please, report to upstrean [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 215040 bytes in 16 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sharpfont-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: %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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sharpfont-3.1.0-1.fc26.i686.rpm sharpfont-devel-3.1.0-1.fc26.i686.rpm sharpfont-3.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm sharpfont.i686: E: no-binary sharpfont.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sharpfont-devel.i686: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Other sharpfont-devel.i686: W: no-documentation sharpfont.src:59: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/ sharpfont.src:60: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sharpfont-devel.i686: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Other sharpfont-devel.i686: W: no-documentation sharpfont.i686: E: no-binary sharpfont.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- sharpfont-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconfig(mono) sharpfont sharpfont (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mono(System.Drawing) mono(mscorlib) Provides -------- sharpfont-devel: pkgconfig(sharpfont) sharpfont-devel sharpfont-devel(x86-32) sharpfont: mono(SharpFont) sharpfont sharpfont(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Robmaister/SharpFont/archive/v3.1.0.tar.gz#/sharpfont-3.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a10994b44439bf0660e06bff2021b3695b2092e93d4bb513a8eb89e4a6ebfbf7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a10994b44439bf0660e06bff2021b3695b2092e93d4bb513a8eb89e4a6ebfbf7 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1279087 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
NON blocking issues: These files are without license header: SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/ExampleForm.Designer.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/ExampleForm.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Forms/LabeledToolStripComboBox.Designer.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Forms/LabeledToolStripComboBox.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/SharpFont/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs Please, report to upstrean sharpfont-devel.i686: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Other Please, remove Approved
Thanks for the review!
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #8) > Thanks for the review! have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868 or this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1370913 ? thanks in advance
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9) > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #8) > > Thanks for the review! > > have time for this > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868 > or this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1370913 ? > thanks in advance Not to expect in the course of next weeks, sorry.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sharpfont
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7) > NON blocking issues: > > These files are without license header: > SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/ExampleForm.Designer.cs > SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/ExampleForm.cs > SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Forms/LabeledToolStripComboBox.Designer.cs > SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Forms/LabeledToolStripComboBox.cs > SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/Examples/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs > SharpFont-3.1.0/Source/SharpFont/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs > Please, report to upstrean https://github.com/Robmaister/SharpFont/issues/92 By the way, new version 4.0.1 > sharpfont-devel.i686: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Other > Please, remove Fixed.
Any plan to push this package to Fedora 25 and Fedora 24? You need to follow : https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ process
Pravin, thanks for your request. I just did not have the time to build for other Fedoras. Currently, I see a possible need only for upcoming OpenRA (bug #1159091) that is still incomplete and not yet defined to be fully available in any concrete Fedora version. May I ask for what you need the requested builds? Are you generally interested in help for mono packages? I could give you commit rights for sharpfont (and other packages). If you're interested in becoming a co-maintainer, please request so in PkgDB and I'll approve you.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #14) > May I ask for what you need the requested builds? I see this package is approved in Fedora 25 release cycle, so good to have this available in upcoming release. >Are you generally > interested in help for mono packages? I could give you commit rights for > sharpfont (and other packages). If you're interested in becoming a > co-maintainer, please request so in PkgDB and I'll approve you. Sure, i will help to build for F25. :) Requested access. I am already proven packager, will do it soon. Thanks
Pravin, thanks again. Approved in PkgDB.
sharpfont-4.0.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-234e7936ab
This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes. Pravin, please do so and we can close this bug.
Thanks for the ping. Done the needful :)
sharpfont-4.0.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.