Bug 1918394 - Review Request: steinberg-petaluma-fonts - Petaluma music font
Summary: Review Request: steinberg-petaluma-fonts - Petaluma music font
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jared Smith
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-01-20 15:58 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2021-01-20 21:28 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: steinberg-petaluma-fonts-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-01-20 21:28:45 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jsmith.fedora: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2021-01-20 15:58:39 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/steinberg-petaluma-fonts/steinberg-petaluma-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/steinberg-petaluma-fonts/steinberg-petaluma-fonts-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: Petaluma is a Unicode typeface designed by Steinberg for its Dorico music notation and scoring application.  It is compliant with version 1.3 of the Standard Music Font Layout (SMuFL), a community-driven standard for how music symbols should be laid out in the Unicode Private Use Area (PUA) in the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP) for compatibility between different scoring applications.

Comment 1 Jared Smith 2021-01-20 19:25:31 UTC
Package is APPROVED.  The fedora-review script has a few complaints below, but I checked them manually and they're false positives.

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


===== 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]: 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* SIL Open Font License", "Unknown or generated",
     "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /tmp/1918394-steinberg-petaluma-
     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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[-]: %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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[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


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.8 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR = mock-2.8-1.fc33)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.8
INFO: Mock Version: 2.8
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /tmp/1918394-steinberg-petaluma-fonts/results/steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /tmp/1918394-steinberg-petaluma-fonts/results/steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.noarch.rpm
          steinberg-petaluma-fonts-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.src.rpm
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/steinbergmedia/petaluma/archive/c7a3e8edba148915e5d1af8a5d4a50e5da4e0ea2/petaluma-c7a3e8edba148915e5d1af8a5d4a50e5da4e0ea2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 40f376d938ecab5485ce75b0470cb53abec941c0308cc82e27b9ebdc90f4bb24
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40f376d938ecab5485ce75b0470cb53abec941c0308cc82e27b9ebdc90f4bb24


Requires
--------
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    steinberg-petaluma-fonts
    steinberg-petalumascript-fonts
    steinberg-petalumatext-fonts



Provides
--------
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all:
    steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1918394
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, R, Java, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-01-20 20:31:00 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/steinberg-petaluma-fonts

Comment 3 Jerry James 2021-01-20 21:28:45 UTC
Built in Rawhide.


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