Bug 1525860 - Review Request: naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts - Nanum Gothic Coding family of Korean TrueType fonts
Summary: Review Request: naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts - Nanum Gothic Coding family ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-12-14 08:54 UTC by Peng Wu
Modified: 2018-01-10 02:02 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-01-10 02:02:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
panemade: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peng Wu 2017-12-14 08:54:31 UTC
Spec URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Nanum Gothic Coding family of Korean TrueType fonts
Fedora Account System Username:pwu

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-12-14 12:08:32 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Suggestions:
1) Remove Group: tag

2) There is no appstream metainfo file. Please write one and install to the upstream recommended new location /usr/share/metainfo
See https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Fonts.html

3) Do not reset to older builds, always start renamed package from where we left old package so this package should have
Version:        2.000
Release:        9%{?dist}

and

# Remove in F30
Provides:   nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts = %{version}-9
Obsoletes:  nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts < 2.000-9

4) Follow https://pagure.io/fontpackages/raw/master/f/spec-templates/spectemplate-fonts-simple.spec and add %check also

5) Good to document reason why this rename is happening just above Obsoletes: and Provides: line


===== 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1525860-naver-nanum-gothic-
     coding-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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]: 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.

fonts:
[!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
     Note: Cannot find createrepo, install createrepo package to make a
     comprehensive font review.
     See: url: undefined
=> No I don't think we need to run this which is based on yum and python2 for rawhide.

[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
     Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-1.fc28.src.rpm
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: NanumGothicCoding-2.0.zip
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://dev.naver.com/projects/nanumfont/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts)
    fontpackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts:
    config(naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts)
    font(:lang=bg)
    font(:lang=fj)
    font(:lang=ho)
    font(:lang=ia)
    font(:lang=ie)
    font(:lang=io)
    font(:lang=kj)
    font(:lang=ko)
    font(:lang=kum)
    font(:lang=kwm)
    font(:lang=lg)
    font(:lang=ms)
    font(:lang=ng)
    font(:lang=nr)
    font(:lang=om)
    font(:lang=os)
    font(:lang=rn)
    font(:lang=ru)
    font(:lang=rw)
    font(:lang=sel)
    font(:lang=sn)
    font(:lang=so)
    font(:lang=ss)
    font(:lang=st)
    font(:lang=sw)
    font(:lang=ts)
    font(:lang=uz)
    font(:lang=xh)
    font(:lang=za)
    font(:lang=zu)
    font(nanumgothiccoding)
    font(나눔고딕코딩)
    naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts
    nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1525860 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-12-19 12:49:04 UTC
As per guidelines we hardcode the last old package version-release so change
Obsoletes:  nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts < %{version}-%{release}
to
Obsoletes:  nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts <= 2.0.0-8

See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages



Rest looks fine
APPROVED.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-12-21 12:31:20 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2017-12-22 03:32:26 UTC
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-9.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-dbfe23fb09

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-12-22 12:43:25 UTC
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-9.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-dbfe23fb09

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2018-01-10 02:02:10 UTC
naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-9.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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