Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/vishalvvr/smc-fonts/fedora-29-x86_64/00839546-smc-suruma-fonts/smc-suruma-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/vishalvvr/smc-fonts/fedora-29-x86_64/00839546-smc-suruma-fonts/smc-suruma-fonts-3.2.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Suruma-3.2.1 is a rehash of earlier releases. The earlier idea of akhand conjuncts for *RA *LA forms is revisited and implemented again with the new opentype specs. The new specs do away with statically-assigned character properties (by the shaping engine) for consonants. Instead, they are font dependent. i.e., post-base forms, below-base forms etc. are all decided by the the font itself. This concept was also used in the initial version of suruma font. Fedora Account System Username: vishalvvr
Licence should be GPLv3+ with exceptions. Same should be changed in metainfo file. Not sure if we need "BuildRequires: python3-fonttools" in SPEC file.
(In reply to vishalvvr from comment #0) > Spec URL: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/vishalvvr/smc-fonts/fedora- > 29-x86_64/00839546-smc-suruma-fonts/smc-suruma-fonts.spec > > SRPM URL: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/vishalvvr/smc-fonts/fedora- > 29-x86_64/00839546-smc-suruma-fonts/smc-suruma-fonts-3.2.1-1.fc29.src.rpm > > Description: Suruma-3.2.1 is a rehash of earlier releases. > The earlier idea of akhand conjuncts for *RA *LA forms is revisited and > implemented again with the new opentype specs. The new specs do away > with statically-assigned character properties (by the shaping engine) > for consonants. Instead, they are font dependent. i.e., post-base forms, > below-base forms etc. are all decided by the the font itself. > This concept was also used in the initial version of suruma font. > > Fedora Account System Username: vishalvvr The license used is unknown,please use something out of this list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Font_Licenses
SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/vishalvvr/smc-fonts/fedora-29-x86_64/00840747-smc-suruma-fonts/smc-suruma-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/vishalvvr/smc-fonts/fedora-29-x86_64/00840747-smc-suruma-fonts/smc-suruma-fonts-3.2.1-2.fc29.src.rpm Updated license and removed unwanted BuildRequires.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Suggestions: 1) Maybe you just want to say "Font" in Summary as its only one font file provided by this package 2) License in metainfo file should be "GPLv3+ with exceptions" ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution Public License (v3.0)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1661862-smc-suruma-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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. ==> Provides are not needed as we are just splitting original package [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: %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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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. fonts: [x]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. [x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log. Rpmlint ------- Checking: smc-suruma-fonts-3.2.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm smc-suruma-fonts-3.2.1-2.fc30.src.rpm smc-suruma-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US akhand -> hand smc-suruma-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opentype -> open type, open-type, phenotype smc-suruma-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided smc-fonts-common smc-suruma-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US akhand -> hand smc-suruma-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opentype -> open type, open-type, phenotype 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory smc-suruma-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US akhand -> hand smc-suruma-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opentype -> open type, open-type, phenotype smc-suruma-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/suruma <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> smc-suruma-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided smc-fonts-common 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- smc-suruma-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(smc-suruma-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- smc-suruma-fonts: config(smc-suruma-fonts) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=ml) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=rw) 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(suruma) metainfo() metainfo(smc-suruma.metainfo.xml) smc-suruma-fonts Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/suruma/-/archive/Version3.2.1/suruma-Version3.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 998d84e3818a5b84f543f3f855cf8702b1f0823456568e81f4f646d25e6b3723 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 998d84e3818a5b84f543f3f855cf8702b1f0823456568e81f4f646d25e6b3723 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1661862 -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 APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts