Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/3270-fonts/3270-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/3270-fonts/3270-fonts-2.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: This font is derived from the x3270 font, which, in turn, was translated from the one in Georgia Tech's 3270tool, which was itself hand-copied from a 3270 terminal. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63038983
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz → Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz - You need to specify the Foundry: %global foundry and name the package foundry-3270-fonts - You need to provide a fontconf file, for ex: %global fontconfs %{SOURCE10}
- Bump to 3.2.0 - The license shorthand for SIL ir OFL %global fontlicense BSD and OFL
Thanks! For the foundry, the designer of the font is Ricardo Bánffy, but I don't think he's tied to any established foundry. The README for the project says "This font is derived from the x3270 font, which, in turn, was translated from the one in Georgia Tech's 3270tool, which was itself hand-copied from a 3270 series terminal.". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_shared_font_declarations seems to imply this is optional, but it's not terribly clear.
- Use the github name as foundry, rbanffy
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbanffy-3270-fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbanffy-3270-fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts-2.3.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm Changelog: - New upstream release - Update URL - Fix license - Define foundry and rename package accordingly - Switch to %%autosetup - Add fontconfig file
Without the fontconfig file: $ fc-scan -f "%{family[0]};%{style[0]};%{fullname[0]};%{width};%{weight};%{slant};%{fontversion};%{file}\n" /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts/ | sort -t ';' -k1,1d -k4,4n -k5,5n -k6,6n -k2,2d -k7,7dr | uniq | column --separator ';' -t IBM 3270 Regular IBM 3270 100 80 0 150732 /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts//3270-Regular.otf IBM 3270 Condensed Condensed IBM 3270 Condensed 100 80 0 150732 /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts//3270Condensed-Regular.otf IBM 3270 Semi-Condensed Condensed IBM 3270 Semi-Condensed 100 80 0 150732 /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts//3270SemiCondensed-Regular.otf With the fontconfig file: $ fc-scan -f "%{family[0]};%{style[0]};%{fullname[0]};%{width};%{weight};%{slant};%{fontversion};%{file}\n" /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts/ | sort -t ';' -k1,1d -k4,4n -k5,5n -k6,6n -k2,2d -k7,7dr | uniq | column --separator ';' -t IBM 3270 Condensed IBM 3270 Condensed 100 80 0 1 /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts//3270Condensed-Regular.otf IBM 3270 Condensed IBM 3270 SemiCondensed 100 80 0 1 /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts//3270SemiCondensed-Regular.otf IBM 3270 Regular IBM 3270 100 80 0 2 /usr/share/fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts//3270-Regular.otf I tried following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_fontconfig_2 for this, but please doublecheck my work here.
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #6) > Spec URL: > https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbanffy-3270-fonts/rbanffy-3270- > fonts.spec > SRPM URL: > https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbanffy-3270-fonts/rbanffy-3270- > fonts-2.3.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm > This is the wrong file, I ned the source package not the resulting noarch package. I can't check the fontconf without it.
Ah, sorry about that. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbanffy-3270-fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbanffy-3270-fonts/rbanffy-3270-fonts-2.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
- Fontconf LGTM from my previous experiences, but I'm not a specialist. Package approved. 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License SIL Open Font License 1.1 GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rbanffy-3270-fonts/review- rbanffy-3270-fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 20480 bytes in 2 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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. [-]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rbanffy-3270-fonts-2.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm rbanffy-3270-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Monospaced -> Mono spaced, Mono-spaced, Monocled 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rbanffy-3270-fonts 1934902 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32904
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rbanffy-3270-fonts
FEDORA-2021-ef9629064a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ef9629064a
FEDORA-2021-f9203cb022 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9203cb022
FEDORA-2021-ed1248d6bf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ed1248d6bf
FEDORA-2021-f9203cb022 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f9203cb022 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9203cb022 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ed1248d6bf has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-ed1248d6bf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ed1248d6bf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ef9629064a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-ef9629064a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ef9629064a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-ef9629064a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-ed1248d6bf has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-f9203cb022 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.