Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fontawesome-free-fonts/fontawesome-free-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fontawesome-free-fonts/fontawesome-free-fonts-5.15.3-1.fc35.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Font Awesome gives you scalable vector icons that can instantly be customized - size, color, drop shadow, and anything that can be done with the power of CSS. This is version 5.x of the font set. Version 4.x is in the existing fontawesome-fonts and fontawesome-fonts-web packages. Since it appears that versions 4.x and 5.x will need to coexist for some time (see bug 1857488 and bug 1960052), this is my attempt at making that possible.
Based on comments made on fedora-devel-list, I have changed the name to fontawesome5-fonts, and have also reorganized the contents somewhat. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fontawesome5-fonts/fontawesome5-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fontawesome5-fonts/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc35.src.rpm
The package now fully complies with the font packaging guidelines. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fontawesome5-fonts/fontawesome5-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fontawesome5-fonts/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc36.src.rpm
I never did a font review. Can you post the link to font packaging guidelines, please?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/
Review tool gives me an installation error. ``` Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.12 starting (python version = 3.9.6, NVR = mock-2.12-1.fc34)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled 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: 2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /home/rave//fedora-34-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ``` see ~/fontawesome5-fonts/results/root.log ``` DEBUG util.py:444: No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk DEBUG util.py:446: fedora 27 kB/s | 26 kB 00:00 DEBUG util.py:446: updates 36 kB/s | 19 kB 00:00 DEBUG util.py:446: result 3.0 MB/s | 3.0 kB 00:00 DEBUG util.py:444: Error: DEBUG util.py:444: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:444: - nothing provides fontawesome5-brands-fonts = 5.15.4-1.fc34 needed by fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch DEBUG util.py:444: - nothing provides fontawesome5-free-fonts = 5.15.4-1.fc34 needed by fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch DEBUG util.py:446: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) ``` Not sure if this is an problem or a fault positive, because i can reproduce the error with my box when i install only the 3 mentioned packages. If i install all packages from result dir everything seems to run well. ``` [root@mother results]# ls build.log fontawesome5-brands-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.src.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-free-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm hw_info.log installed_pkgs.log repodata root.log state.log [root@mother results]# [root@mother results]# [root@mother results]# [root@mother results]# dnf install fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 2:39:26 ago on Fri Aug 20 12:44:06 2021. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides fontawesome5-brands-fonts = 5.15.4-1.fc34 needed by fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch - nothing provides fontawesome5-free-fonts = 5.15.4-1.fc34 needed by fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) [root@mother results]# [root@mother results]# [root@mother results]# [root@mother results]# dnf install fontawesome5-brands-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-free-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 2:40:16 ago on Fri Aug 20 12:44:06 2021. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: fontawesome5-brands-fonts noarch 5.15.4-1.fc34 @commandline 244 k fontawesome5-fonts noarch 5.15.4-1.fc34 @commandline 566 k fontawesome5-fonts-all noarch 5.15.4-1.fc34 @commandline 6.2 k fontawesome5-fonts-web noarch 5.15.4-1.fc34 @commandline 716 k fontawesome5-free-fonts noarch 5.15.4-1.fc34 @commandline 284 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 5 Packages Total size: 1.8 M Installed size: 13 M Is this ok [y/N]: n Operation aborted. ``` I am also wondering that fontawesome5-brands-fonts, fontawesome5-fonts-all, fontawesome5-free-fonts are not mentioned in spec file. What magic happened here? :)
(In reply to Wolfgang Ulbrich from comment #5) > Review tool gives me an installation error. [snip] > ``` > DEBUG util.py:444: No matches found for the following disable plugin > patterns: local, spacewalk > DEBUG util.py:446: fedora 27 kB/s > | 26 kB 00:00 > DEBUG util.py:446: updates 36 kB/s > | 19 kB 00:00 > DEBUG util.py:446: result 3.0 MB/s > | 3.0 kB 00:00 > DEBUG util.py:444: Error: > DEBUG util.py:444: Problem: conflicting requests > DEBUG util.py:444: - nothing provides fontawesome5-brands-fonts = > 5.15.4-1.fc34 needed by fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch > DEBUG util.py:444: - nothing provides fontawesome5-free-fonts = > 5.15.4-1.fc34 needed by fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch > DEBUG util.py:446: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable > packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) > ``` > > Not sure if this is an problem or a fault positive, because i can reproduce > the error with my box when i install only the 3 mentioned packages. If i > install all packages from result dir everything seems to run well. That is weird. I don't know what fedora-review is trying to do there. The fontawesome5-fonts-all package has "all" in the name for a reason: it depends on the other fonts. Which were built. So why isn't fedora-review trying to install all of them??? As you note, the packages can all be installed manually, so there is nothing wrong with the dependencies. I don't know what happened. It looks like a fedora-review bug to me. > I am also wondering that fontawesome5-brands-fonts, fontawesome5-fonts-all, > fontawesome5-free-fonts are not mentioned in spec file. What magic happened > here? :) You are seeing the magic font macros at work! The %fontpkg macro generates fontawesome5-brands-fonts and fontawesome5-free-fonts from the %global settings above (%fontfamily1, %fontsummary1, etc.), and the %fontmetapkg macro generates fontawesome5-fonts-all from the unnumbered %global settings (%fontlicense, etc.). Down below, the %fontfiles macro generates %files sections for each of those packages. Also, speaking of fedora-review bugs, it issues a couple of bogus complaints; see bug 1996210.
Yeah, the problem is that dnf can't resolve the dependency at repos, because missing packages aren't at repos. I agree it is a fault by fedora-review-tool not to install all packages.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fontawesome5 This is caused by fontawesome5-fonts-web sub-package which can be installed without the main package (fontawesome5-fonts), which owns the directory. Is this the intended behavior? If yes, than the -web sub-package needs to own the directory too ``` %files web %doc CHANGELOG.md README* UPGRADING.md %license LICENSE.txt %dir %{_datadir}/fontawesome5 %{_datadir}/fontawesome5/js/ %{_datadir}/fontawesome5/sprites/ %{_datadir}/fontawesome5/svgs/ ``` This silences the warning. Or you need to add a Requires to the -web sub-package, which pointed to the main package. Rest looks ok ;)
I have added "%dir %{_datadir}/fontawesome5" to the web subpackage. I updated the spec file and srpm at the URLs in comment 2.
PACKAGE IS APPROVED! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 245760 bytes in 12 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint 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 2.12 starting (python version = 3.9.6, NVR = mock-2.12-1.fc34)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled 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: 2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /home/rave//fedora-34-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.src.rpm fontawesome5-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation fontawesome5-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation fontawesome5-fonts-web.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript fontawesome5-fonts-web.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript fontawesome5-fonts.src: W: strange-permission trademarks.py 775 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/archive/5.15.4/Font-Awesome-5.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82c301594a566277ba3cf41e037fc03ae101727d3e5d682d09e322a53937b5ed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82c301594a566277ba3cf41e037fc03ae101727d3e5d682d09e322a53937b5ed Requires -------- fontawesome5-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontawesome5-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontawesome5-brands-fonts fontawesome5-free-fonts fontawesome5-fonts-web (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fontawesome5-fonts: fontawesome5-fonts fontawesome5-fonts-all: fontawesome5-fonts-all fontawesome5-fonts-web: fontawesome5-fonts-web Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -r -n fontawesome5-fonts -m fedora-34-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-34-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Python, R, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you, Wolfgang. I appreciate the review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontawesome5-fonts
Built for Rawhide and F35.