Spec URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky inspired by signs around the Montserrat area of Buenos Aires, Argentina Fedora Account System Username: luya
Scratch build result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13450907 rpmlint result: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-1.fc23.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #1) > Scratch build result: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13450907 Disregard the first scratch build because it is older version. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13451967
One small note - move appstream-util call to check section.
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > One small note - move appstream-util call to check section. Done. Here is the updated spec and new srpm: SPEC url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec SRMP url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-2.fc23.src.rpm Note: appdata guideline was unclear about appstream-util located on %check section, it mentioned either that or %install. Perhaps updating a spec file example for good reference.
- 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. Note: License file LICENSE.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text + license is acceptable (OFL) + license file is present + version is recent (git snapshot) + provides/requires look OK + font packaging guidelines are followed One question: why do you add separate otf, ttf subdirs? Other font packages don't do that afaics. There's a problem with directory ownership too: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/julietaula-montserrat/otf, /usr/share/fonts/julietaula-montserrat/ttf.
Here is the updated files addressing following issues: - Change %doc to %license - Deleted oft and ttf subdirectories SPEC url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec SRMP url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-3.fc23.src.rpm
$ appstream-util validate /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: • style-invalid : Not enough <p> tags for a good description Validation of files failed Would be nice to extend the description with a second paragraph to make gnome-software happy. No other issues. Package is APPROVED.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) > $ appstream-util validate > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > • style-invalid : Not enough <p> tags for a good description > Validation of files failed > > Would be nice to extend the description with a second paragraph to make > gnome-software happy. > > No other issues. Package is APPROVED. Thank you, Zbigniew. appstram-util is too picky sometimes. I will do on the next update.
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d998681c55
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) > $ appstream-util validate > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > • style-invalid : Not enough <p> tags for a good description > Validation of files failed validate-relax ;)
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2d8a0763ef
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ae2c22107d
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7c72af3d2a
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7dc6c6d417
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #10) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) > > $ appstream-util validate > > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml > > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > > • style-invalid : Not enough <p> tags for a good description > > Validation of files failed > > validate-relax ;) The spec file has validate-relax already, and that's the right thing to use for %check. But it's sometimes good to check what the "non-relax" version says.
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-2d8a0763ef
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-d998681c55
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.