Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-1.002-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Zilla Slab is a casual and contemporary slab serif with a good amount of quirk. It is the official brand typeface for Mozilla. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Package approved, thanks for packaging! 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: "Unknown or generated", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open Font License (v1.1 or later)". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-scm/1888658-mozilla-zilla- slab-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. [x]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: 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. 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: mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-common-1.002-1.fc34.noarch.rpm mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-1.002-1.fc34.src.rpm mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-common.noarch: W: no-documentation mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_font_pkg mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-common 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mozilla/zilla-slab/releases/download/v1.002/Zilla-Slab-Fonts-v1.002.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 62490dc19cd17e2951fe88ba3e662089ca14077634cacf1f12926374281dcf42 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 62490dc19cd17e2951fe88ba3e662089ca14077634cacf1f12926374281dcf42 Requires -------- mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-common: mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts-common
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mozilla-zilla-slab-fonts
FEDORA-2020-31b5140215 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-31b5140215
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f40e7e3e22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f40e7e3e22
FEDORA-2020-39874e409b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-39874e409b
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-dbff1c3636 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-dbff1c3636
FEDORA-2020-6d4850f639 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6d4850f639
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-dbff1c3636 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f40e7e3e22 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-31b5140215 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-39874e409b has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-6d4850f639 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.