Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~linkdupont/google-roboto-mono-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7949/38527949/google-roboto-mono-fonts-2.002-0.1.20190125git.fc30.src.rpm Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38527948 Description: Roboto Mono is a monospaced addition to the Roboto type family. Like the other members of the Roboto family, the fonts are optimized for readability on screens across a wide variety of devices and reading environments. While the monospaced version is related to its variable width cousin, it doesn't hesitate to change forms to better fit the constraints of a monospaced environment. For example, narrow glyphs like 'I', 'l' and 'i' have added serifs for more even texture while wider glyphs are adjusted for weight. Curved caps like 'C' and 'O' take on the straighter sides from Roboto Condensed. Notes: This is a re-review request of a retired package. I intend to adopt this package once approved. Original Review Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265636
install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/appdata install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE12} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/appdata Appdata is deprecated, use %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir} instead Please provide a src.rpm on a stable url, koji is deleting its resilts fast.
Thanks for the review! I updated the spec file to use %_metainfodir instead. Here's an srpm and spec. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~linkdupont/google-roboto-mono-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~linkdupont/srpms/google-roboto-mono-fonts-2.002-0.1.20190125git.fc31.src.rpm
- the date should be the date you took the snapshot, not the date of the commit - Release: 0.1.20190125git%{?dist} → Release: 1.20200129git5338537%{?dist} Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-roboto-mono-fonts See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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]: 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/google-roboto- mono-fonts/review-google-roboto-mono-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 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 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. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: google-roboto-mono-fonts-2.002-0.1.20190125git.fc32.src.rpm google-roboto-mono-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospaced -> mono spaced, mono-spaced, monocled 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
FEDORA-2020-e0ad21b5ad has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e0ad21b5ad
google-roboto-mono-fonts-2.002-0.1.20200129git.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-2020-e0ad21b5ad
google-roboto-mono-fonts-2.002-0.1.20200129git.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.