Bug 1908042 - Review Request: material-icons-fonts - Google material design system icons
Summary: Review Request: material-icons-fonts - Google material design system icons
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-12-15 18:02 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2020-12-30 16:40 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: material-icons-fonts-4.0.0-1.fc34
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-12-30 16:40:02 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zbyszek: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2020-12-15 18:02:24 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/material-icons-fonts/material-icons-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/material-icons-fonts/material-icons-fonts-4.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: Material design icons is the official icon set from Google.  The icons are designed under the material design guidelines.

Comment 1 Luya Tshimbalanga 2020-12-23 03:43:56 UTC
Hello Jerry,
appdata is missing which is needed for Gnome Software. Please follow this guideline: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2020-12-27 13:34:05 UTC
Why would AppData be needed for a font, which is neither a GUI application nor an add-on for a GUI application?

Comment 3 Luya Tshimbalanga 2020-12-27 19:19:59 UTC
(In reply to code from comment #2)
> Why would AppData be needed for a font, which is neither a GUI application
> nor an add-on for a GUI application?

Appdata is more than GUI application, it allows to easy find a font application on GNOME Software. 
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Fonts.html

Majority of fonts are packaged that way on Fedora repository.

Comment 4 Ben Beasley 2020-12-27 20:23:04 UTC
Thanks, I learned something. That’s surprisingly straightforward.

Comment 5 Jerry James 2020-12-28 18:47:47 UTC
Hi Luya.  I don't understand.  The binary package contains /usr/share/metainfo/org.fedoraproject.material-icons-fonts.metainfo.xml, which has a <component type="font">...</component> definition.  If you are asking for something else, I don't know what it is.

Comment 6 Luya Tshimbalanga 2020-12-29 16:29:32 UTC
Hi Jerry,

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #5)
> Hi Luya.  I don't understand.  The binary package contains
> /usr/share/metainfo/org.fedoraproject.material-icons-fonts.metainfo.xml,
> which has a <component type="font">...</component> definition.  If you are
> asking for something else, I don't know what it is.

Per guidelines on your spec files:

BuildRequires: libappstream-glib

On %install or %check

appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/org.fedoraproject.material-icons-fonts.metainfo.xml

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage

Comment 7 Jerry James 2020-12-29 23:20:16 UTC
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #6)
> Per guidelines on your spec files:
> 
> BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
> 
> On %install or %check
> 
> appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
> %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/org.fedoraproject.material-icons-fonts.metainfo.
> xml

Oh, right.  I did forget that.  Although one would hope that Fedora's font macros would generate valid appstream metadata. :-)  New URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/material-icons-fonts/material-icons-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/material-icons-fonts/material-icons-fonts-4.0.0-2.fc34.src.rpm

Comment 8 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2020-12-30 15:29:54 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== 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.
ASL 2.0

[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated",
     "Apache License 2.0". 316567 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1908042-material-icons-
     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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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).
[?]: 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.
Upstream does not publish signatures.

[-]: 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:
[!]: 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
repo-font-audit and fontpackages-tools are both gone. I think this is something
that needs updating in fedora-review.

[!]: 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: material-icons-fonts-4.0.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
 b1b068d625d5e15d6ec0059209cec67bc4c46e39c4611b859d6f6680dbf23934


Requires
--------
config(material-icons-fonts) = 4.0.0-2.fc34
fontpackages-filesystem
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1


Provides
--------
config(material-icons-fonts) = 4.0.0-2.fc34
font(materialicons)
font(materialiconsoutlined)
font(materialiconsround)
font(materialiconssharp)
font(materialiconstwotone)
material-icons-fonts = 4.0.0-2.fc34
metainfo()
metainfo(org.fedoraproject.material-icons-fonts.metainfo.xml)


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10

Package is APPROVED.

Comment 9 Jerry James 2020-12-30 15:47:17 UTC
Thank you for the review!  Let me know if I can review something for you.

Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-12-30 16:03:47 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/material-icons-fonts

Comment 11 Jerry James 2020-12-30 16:40:02 UTC
Built in Rawhide.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.