Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322919-itf-poppins-fonts/itf-poppins-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322919-itf-poppins-fonts/itf-poppins-fonts-4.003-1.20200328git738d9d6.fc33.src.rpm Description: uring the 1920s, Central European type foundries joined the modernists movements in art and design. Modernism was truly international in scope; only three years after the founding of the German Bauhaus school, several of its painting instructors were already exhibiting their work in Calcutta. Geometric sans serif typefaces have been a popular design element ever since these actors took to the world’s stage. Poppins is one of the newest comer to this long tradition. An open source family supporting both Devanagari and Latin, this typeface is an internationalist take on the geometric sans genre. Many of the Latin glyphs — the ampersand, for instance — are far more constructed and rationalist than in previously released geometric typefaces. Poppins’s Devanagari design is particularly new. It is likely the first-ever large Devanagari family in this style that has been brought to market. The Poppins family includes all of the unique conjunct forms necessary for typesetting Indian languages like Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, etc. Just like the Latin glyphs, the Devanagari forms in Poppins are based pure geometry (particularly circles). Poppins’s letters are practically mono-linear, although optical corrections have been applied to stroke joints where necessary, to maintain an even color in text. The Devanagari base character height and the Latin ascender height are equal; Latin capital letters are shorter than the Devanagari characters, and the Latin x-height is set rather high. The Devanagari glyphs in Poppins were designed by Ninad Kale. The Latin is from Jonny Pinhorn. The Indian Type Foundry first published Poppins in 2014. Fedora Account System Username: nim
Successful Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43889269
Hello Nicolas, please check the issues. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Please use hyphen and single quote of ASCII instead. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_encoding - %{?dist} should never be used in the %changelog entries. "4.003-1.20200328git738d9d6" should be "4.003-1". Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/#_using_dist ===== 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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 111 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/FedoraReview/1818565-itf-poppins-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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [x]: 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. [x]: %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: [-]: fontpackages-tools, which contains repo-font-audit, is replaced by fonts-rpm-macros. However, it doesn't provide repo-font-audit. [-]: ttname package doesn't exist in fedora3? at least. Rpmlint ------- Checking: itf-poppins-fonts-4.003-1.20200328git738d9d6.fc33.noarch.rpm itf-poppins-fonts-4.003-1.20200328git738d9d6.fc33.src.rpm itf-poppins-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascender -> ascended, ascend er, ascend-er itf-poppins-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascender -> ascended, ascend er, ascend-er 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- itf-poppins-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascender -> ascended, ascend er, ascend-er 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/itfoundry/Poppins/archive/738d9d691b66f1ad917123c58df104d16c74e1a7/Poppins-738d9d691b66f1ad917123c58df104d16c74e1a7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 92e2b00f2ed3f6b5e2b7ecf2749a12a545fc22370e38a135f214e4bc6d99c9a7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92e2b00f2ed3f6b5e2b7ecf2749a12a545fc22370e38a135f214e4bc6d99c9a7 Requires -------- itf-poppins-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(itf-poppins-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- itf-poppins-fonts: config(itf-poppins-fonts) font(poppins) font(poppinsblack) font(poppinsextrabold) font(poppinsextralight) font(poppinslight) font(poppinsmedium) font(poppinssemibold) font(poppinsthin) font(poppinsvf) font(poppinsvf100) itf-poppins-fonts metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.itf-poppins-fonts.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (cd5b7df) last change: 2020-03-19 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1818565 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Java, R, Ruby, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hello Nicolas, (In reply to Hirotaka Wakabayashi from comment #2) > - %{?dist} should never be used in the %changelog entries. > "4.003-1.20200328git738d9d6" should be "4.003-1". Please see: Please skit the comment above. This is not a problem. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Hello Nicolas, The spec file is unreachable now, but please tell us where you upload the new spec file. I remember this spec file contains non-ASCII characters in the package description. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.