spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-1.20180313git16680f86/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-1.20180313git16680f86/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-1.20180313git16680f86.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44536203 Description: HanYang I&C Co's Gothic A1 is an elegant Korean and Latin font, available in 9 weights. Fedora Account System Username: suve NOTE: The linked koji build fails. The package built fine on my F32 install. I took a look at fonts-{,s}rpm-macros and noticed that the version in Rawhide is 3.0.3, while F32 has v2.0.3, so my guess is that it may be caused by some changes to the macros. This is my first time packaging fonts, so any help will be appreciated.
Build failed on Rawhide
1. Yes, I noticed. Even mentioned that in the original submission. 2. Apparently font packaging is currently broken in Rawhide and the Packaging Committee is working on it: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/982
Font packaging's working again in Rawhide, so here's a new build. Also added a basic fontconfig file in the meantime. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-2.20180313git16680f86/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-2.20180313git16680f86/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-2.20180313git16680f86.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44884382
Check the messages: fonts: [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Rpmlint ------- Checking: hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-2.20180313git16680f86.fc33.noarch.rpm hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts-163840-2.20180313git16680f86.fc33.src.rpm hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.src: W: strange-permission gothicA1-fetch.sh 775 hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: HanYang-GothicA1-16680f8688ffcd467d2eb2146a9ce0343404581d.zip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.hanyang.co.kr/hygothic/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts: config(hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts) font(gothica1) font(gothica1black) font(gothica1extrabold) font(gothica1extralight) font(gothica1light) font(gothica1medium) font(gothica1semibold) font(gothica1thin) font(고딕a1) hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-option=--no-clean -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1836319 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. > Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. fontpackages-tools was retired and is no longer present in F32+: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontpackages/c/e1b656bab2373bba68dfe478ebb768a60276f296?branch=f32 fonts-rpm-macros even provides an Obsoletes: for it: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fonts-rpm-macros/blob/f32/f/fonts-rpm-macros.spec >[!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. > Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. ttname is dead since Fedora 30, maybe even longer: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16910 I guess those should be filed as bugs against fedora-review?
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #5) > > [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. > > Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. > fontpackages-tools was retired and is no longer present in F32+: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontpackages/c/ > e1b656bab2373bba68dfe478ebb768a60276f296?branch=f32 > fonts-rpm-macros even provides an Obsoletes: for it: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fonts-rpm-macros/blob/f32/f/fonts-rpm- > macros.spec > > >[!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. > > Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. > ttname is dead since Fedora 30, maybe even longer: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16910 > > I guess those should be filed as bugs against fedora-review? Oh, okay. Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hanyang-gothic-a1-fonts
FEDORA-2020-842506d133 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-842506d133
FEDORA-2020-fbf910e034 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fbf910e034
FEDORA-2020-842506d133 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-842506d133 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-842506d133 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-fbf910e034 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-fbf910e034 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fbf910e034 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FYI, I've reported the ttname/repo-font-audit issues for fedora-review: ttname is dead: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/390 repo-font-audit is unavailable: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/391
FEDORA-2020-fbf910e034 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-842506d133 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.