Spec URL: https://pagure.io/hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts/raw/master/f/hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01238698-hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts/hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts-12.1.0-3.fc32.src.rpm Description: Emojis with a line-drawn style Fedora Account System Username: mavit
Note that fedora-review has the following issue: 02-14 11:43 root INFO Downloading (Source5): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.txt 02-14 11:43 root DEBUG Download error on https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.txt, : 'Error 403 downloading https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.txt' Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/source.py", line 76, in __init__ self.filename = self._get_file(url, ReviewDirs.upstream, my_logger) File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/helpers_mixin.py", line 109, in _get_file self.urlretrieve(link, path) File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/helpers_mixin.py", line 88, in urlretrieve raise DownloadError(istream.getcode(), url) FedoraReview.helpers_mixin.DownloadError: 'Error 403 downloading https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.txt' 02-14 11:43 root WARNING Cannot download url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.txt 02-14 11:43 root INFO No upstream for (Source5): legalcode.txt However, this file downloads just fine with curl or Firefox, and also in Copr, so I think the webserver must be refusing connections from fedora-review for some reason and this can be safely ignored.
Requested licence texts be included upstream at https://github.com/hfg-gmuend/openmoji/pull/130.
Thanks for the CC Please be aware that FPC approved yesterday a change in Fedora fonts packaging guidelines. They won’t change the packaging style in stable releases, but they *will* change the packaging style and checks in devel as soon as the associated macro package lands in koji (and, maybe also in fc32 for new font packages like yours)
Can you update your packages with the new guidelines?
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts/fedora-32-x86_64/01362227-hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts/hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts-12.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Updated to follow the new guidelines. It doesn't currently build in rawhide, but I see from Koschei that google-droid-fonts is failing with a similar error, so I think that's probably a rawhide issue. It does build in Fedora 31 and 32.
Right, not font packages build on rawhide right now, because it has emerged rpm 4.15 stealthily changed Source/Patches evaluation rules, making existing templates unsafe. The fix is coded by it is waiting for the common part to be merged in redhat-rpm-config. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/83#comment-42999 Sadly no one wanted to look at the problem seriously rpm or redhat-rpm-config side before I pushed a macro build to koji that showed things were not so simple. *After* breaking rawhide builds people had to look at it and it has emerged it is possible to evade the rpm change consequences by using %sourcelist and %patchlist, and adding a wrapper around Name:/%package to workaround the fact %{name} is "special". You have an example of the new templates and of converted packages in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/workaround-rpm-commit-93604e2-effects/builds/ I did everything I could to adapt the macro code to rpm changes with as little spec changes as possible. (you can not use those before the common part is merged in redhat-rpm-config) @eclipseo: Go specs will need the same kind of adjustment, because they use the same basic spec structure, I'm waiting to get the fonts part done to be sure there is no problem left before moving to the Go part. @peter So, it will mostly be transparent font spec side, except Sources will move to a new rpm section and you will lose the ability to set the index of a fontconfig file in sources.
Package is approved but don't forget to add your changelog entry before import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Expat License". 30462 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/hfg- gmuend-openmoji-fonts/review-hfg-gmuend-openmoji- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 8 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]: 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 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hfg-gmuend-openmoji-color-fonts-12.3.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts-all-12.3.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts-12.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm hfg-gmuend-openmoji-color-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Emojis -> Emotes hfg-gmuend-openmoji-color-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emojis -> emotes hfg-gmuend-openmoji-color-fonts.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts-all.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Emojis -> Emotes hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emojis -> emotes hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts.src: E: no-changelogname-tag hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-emoji/archive/ac1703e9d7feebbf5443a986e08332b1e1c5afcf/noto-emoji-ac1703e9d7feebbf5443a986e08332b1e1c5afcf.tar.gz <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hfg-gmuend-openmoji-fonts
Thanks all for your reviews and advice.