Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 189655
Review Request: mftrace - convert TeX bitmap fonts to TrueType fonts
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:31 EST
Spec URL: http://webpages.charter.net/qspencer/rpm/mftrace.spec
SRPM URL: http://webpages.charter.net/qspencer/rpm/mftrace-1.1.19-1.src.rpm
mftrace is a small Python program that lets you trace a TeX bitmap font into a PFA or PFB font (A PostScript Type1 Scalable Font) or TTF (TrueType) font.
This is a build dependency of GNU Lilypond, the automated music typesetting system that I am also submitting for review.
It seems that version 1.2.0 is out; any reason not to submit the updated version?
I see now that the author's web page has been updated to reflect a 1.2.0
release, and I will be happy to update the spec file and SRPM to the new
release, except that the link on the web page is broken, so the new tarball has
apparently not actually been uploaded yet. I'll check again later, but at the
moment, it seems the SRPM I created is still the most current available release.
Odd, but I'm sure it will work itself out. I'll review the current version.
The empty %doc; you should probably package README.txt and ChangeLog.
Generally .pyo files are %ghost'ed instead of being packaged (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python), although now that RPM
byte-compiles everything in sight I'm wondering if the guidelines shouldn't be
changed. In any case, I would suggest ghosting the .pyo files but if you don't
want to then I won't insist.
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
* source files match upstream:
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, i386).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; package has no test suite.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
OK, I fixed the empty docs (oops!) and ghosted the .pyo files. This is my first
python package, so I wasn't aware of that. Updated packages at:
I must admit that I don't fully understand the .pyo issue either; I package
denyhosts which is also in Python and the variable behavior with respect to .pyo
files has been nothing but trouble for me. Currently I ghost them all.
Anyway, I just rebuilt in mock and everything now looks good.