Bug 1490833 - Review Request: adobe-mappings-cmap - CMap resources for Adobe's character collections
Summary: Review Request: adobe-mappings-cmap - CMap resources for Adobe's character c...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Zdenek Dohnal
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-09-12 10:51 UTC by David Kaferad // Dee'Kej
Modified: 2017-09-12 16:20 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: adobe-mappings-cmap-20170901-1.fc28
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-09-12 16:18:31 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
deekej: fedora_requires_release_note-
zdohnal: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description David Kaferad // Dee'Kej 2017-09-12 10:51:01 UTC
Spec & SRPM URL:
https://dkaspar.fedorapeople.org/share/reviews/adobe-mappings-cmap/

Description:
CMap (Character Map) resources are used to unidirectionally map character codes,
such as Unicode encoding form, to CIDs (Character IDs -- meaning glyphs) of a
CIDFont resource.

These CMap resources are useful for some applications (e.g. Ghostscript) to
correctly display text containing Japanese, (Traditional) Chinese, or Korean
characters.

Fedora Account System Username: dkaspar

Comment 1 David Kaferad // Dee'Kej 2017-09-12 10:58:51 UTC
Regarding your question about Code vs. Content:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content

This package contains only content, which is however necessary for few of our applications in Fedora to work properly. The content is using Open Source license (BSD) and was part of the Fedora previously...

This is just repackaging and putting some order into the previous mess... :)

Comment 2 Zdenek Dohnal 2017-09-12 13:10:55 UTC
Package Review
==============

No major issues, spelling errors in rpmlint are caused by errors in rpmlint, giving 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: "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 196
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root
     /adobe-mappings-cmap/review-adobe-mappings-cmap/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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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:
[x]: 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).
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: adobe-mappings-cmap-20170901-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          adobe-mappings-cmap-deprecated-20170901-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          adobe-mappings-cmap-20170901-1.fc26.src.rpm
adobe-mappings-cmap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unidirectionally -> unidirectional, bidirectionally, bidirectional
adobe-mappings-cmap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph, glyph s
adobe-mappings-cmap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ghostscript -> Ghost script, Ghost-script, Postscript
adobe-mappings-cmap-deprecated.noarch: W: no-documentation
adobe-mappings-cmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unidirectionally -> unidirectional, bidirectionally, bidirectional
adobe-mappings-cmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph, glyph s
adobe-mappings-cmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ghostscript -> Ghost script, Ghost-script, Postscript
adobe-mappings-cmap.src: W: no-%build-section
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
adobe-mappings-cmap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unidirectionally -> unidirectional, bidirectionally, bidirectional
adobe-mappings-cmap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph, glyph s
adobe-mappings-cmap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ghostscript -> Ghost script, Ghost-script, Postscript
adobe-mappings-cmap-deprecated.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
adobe-mappings-cmap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

adobe-mappings-cmap-deprecated (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    adobe-mappings-cmap



Provides
--------
adobe-mappings-cmap:
    adobe-mappings-cmap

adobe-mappings-cmap-deprecated:
    adobe-mappings-cmap-deprecated



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/cmap-resources/archive/20170901.tar.gz#/cmap-resources-20170901.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b19e0b156c931d0679caf59e6da71a888cffd5fda0ab42e15092191e2387f63a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b19e0b156c931d0679caf59e6da71a888cffd5fda0ab42e15092191e2387f63a


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n adobe-mappings-cmap
Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64
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

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-09-12 13:56:50 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adobe-mappings-cmap


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.