Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/steinberg-bravura-fonts/steinberg-bravura-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/steinberg-bravura-fonts/steinberg-bravura-fonts-1.277-1.20190423.ccc90dd.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Bravura is an OpenType music font developed for Steinberg's Dorico music notation and composition software. It is also the reference font for Standard Music Font Layout (SMuFL), which provides a standard way of mapping the thousands of musical symbols required by conventional music notation into the Private Use Area in Unicode's Basic Multilingual Plane for a single (format-independent) font.
- Not to be provided: install -m 0644 -p eot/*.eot %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} install -m 0644 -p svg/*.svg %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} install -m 0644 -p woff/*.woff %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} install -m 0644 -p woff/*.woff2 %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} We usually ship either ttf or otf Package approved. 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: "SIL Open Font License (v1.1)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License (v1.1)", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License (v2)", "SIL Open Font License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/steinberg-bravura-fonts/review-steinberg- bravura-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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: steinberg-bravura-fonts-common-1.277-1.20190423.ccc90dd.fc32.noarch.rpm steinberg-bravura-fonts-1.277-1.20190423.ccc90dd.fc32.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Not to be provided: > > install -m 0644 -p eot/*.eot %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} > install -m 0644 -p svg/*.svg %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} > install -m 0644 -p woff/*.woff %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} > install -m 0644 -p woff/*.woff2 %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} > > We usually ship either ttf or otf I wondered about that. I notice that some font packages have a -web subpackage that does include these. For example: - fontawesome-fonts-web - mathjax-stixweb-fonts Should I do the same, or should I just omit those files altogether? As far as I can tell, MuseScore does not need these, just the *.otf files, so *I think* for my purposes it doesn't matter.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/steinberg-bravura-fonts
FEDORA-2019-f06255a28a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f06255a28a
steinberg-bravura-fonts-1.277-1.20190423.ccc90dd.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-f06255a28a
steinberg-bravura-fonts-1.277-1.20190423.ccc90dd.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.