Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/ SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/ Description: This is a modified version of the sfnt2woff utility that uses Zopfli as a compression algorithm instead of zlib. This results in compression gains of — on average — 5-8% compared to regular WOFF files. Zopfli generates compressed output that is compatible with regular zlib compression so the resulting WOFF files can be used everywhere. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87562590 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87562593 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87562594
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/sfnt2woff-zopfli.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc36.src.rpm
Unofficial review Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Mozilla Public License 1.1 GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GNU General Public License (v2 or later) or GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 1.1", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License Apache License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/sfnt2woff- zopfli/2091282-sfnt2woff-zopfli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: sfnt2woff-zopfli (description) [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. Note: Couldn't connect to Pagure, check manually [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: 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 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. [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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bramstein/sfnt2woff-zopfli/archive/v1.3.1/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1cc0414cf524e14bdfacab4ab1cdefd596a2023ea133e224f9d54566ef8b2a75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1cc0414cf524e14bdfacab4ab1cdefd596a2023ea133e224f9d54566ef8b2a75 Requires -------- sfnt2woff-zopfli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzopfli.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sfnt2woff-zopfli: sfnt2woff-zopfli sfnt2woff-zopfli(x86-64) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo(x86-64) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource: sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2091282 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: 1) Seems good to me. 2) The url http://people.mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/ seems not to be available. Code seems to be available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170630235618/https://people-mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/ as indicated at https://github.com/TheJessieKirk/sfnt2woff . 3) Descriptions at https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/woff2/woff2-tools/ and https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+package/woff-tools , indicate both compression and decompression executables are available, maybe the description could be updated to indicate this as the name of the package suggests only compression is possible, though decompression only seems to be to stdout. 4) Fedora does not recommend packaging WOFF fonts https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_web_fonts 5) WOFF2 https://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/ is available and may compress better. Some of the implementations listed at https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Implementation.html have been packaged.
6) Should header files be in a devel package? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
Thank you for the preliminary review! > Comments: > 1) Seems good to me. > > 2) The url http://people.mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/ seems not to be available. > Code seems to be available at > https://web.archive.org/web/20170630235618/https://people-mozilla.org/~jkew/ > woff/ as indicated at https://github.com/TheJessieKirk/sfnt2woff . That’s true. That URL is from the following comment, excerpted from the upstream license file: > # Sources in the top-level directory belong to, or are based on, the WOFF > # reference implementation originally published at > # http://people.mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/, and are distributed under the terms > # specified in the file LICENSE-WOFF (MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1). The URL is still a useful identifier for which software was forked and extended to create this program even though the original upstream for the reference implementation (packaged in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/woff) has disappeared. I’m not opposed to adding the archive.org and GitHub mirror links to a new spec file comment for informational purposes, although I don’t believe there is any requirement to have a working URL for software that I am mentioning but not packaging. > 3) Descriptions at > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/woff2/woff2-tools/ and > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+package/woff-tools , indicate both > compression and decompression executables are available, maybe the > description could be updated to indicate this as the name of the package > suggests only compression is possible, though decompression only seems to be > to stdout. That’s reasonable. The description is taken from this software’s upstream, but I could add a sentence mentioning that there is a matching decompression utility. > 4) Fedora does not recommend packaging WOFF fonts > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ > #_web_fonts > > 5) WOFF2 https://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/ is available and may compress better. > Some of the implementations listed at > https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Implementation.html have been packaged. Note that no fonts are packaged here. Your comments are all correct, but I don’t believe they affect this package. This tool is still useful for end-users who have reasons to work with the obsolete WOFF format, and as a dependency for other font creation and development tools with more general applicability. For example, it is a dependency for https://github.com/theleagueof/fontship, which is used for compiling certain open-source fonts from their design sources. It would be really nice to package *that* in Fedora. > 6) Should header files be in a devel package? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Headers that are installed (i.e., because they are needed for linking against a library offered by the package, or they constitute a header-only library provided by the package) should be in a -devel package. There is no reason to attempt to install non-API headers that are internal sources—only those that are “public” headers used for developing with the packaged software. Since this package only provides a pair of command-line tools without any sort of accompanying API or library, it’s correct that no header files are installed.
Updated with additional source file comments on the original WOFF reference implementation and with a mention of the decompression utility in the package description. Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220605/sfnt2woff-zopfli.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220605/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc36.src.rpm > diff --git a/sfnt2woff-zopfli.spec b/sfnt2woff-zopfli.spec > index 7fedb86..a713768 100644 > --- a/sfnt2woff-zopfli.spec > +++ b/sfnt2woff-zopfli.spec > @@ -21,6 +21,13 @@ License: MPLv1.0 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ > URL: https://github.com/bramstein/sfnt2woff-zopfli > Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > +# Note that the URL http://people.mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/, where the original > +# WOFF reference implementation sources were published, is no longer available. > +# A copy of that page can be found at > +# https://web.archive.org/web/20170630235618/https://people-mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/, > +# and the sources are mirrored at https://github.com/TheJessieKirk/sfnt2woff. > +# See also https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/woff. > + > BuildRequires: gcc > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib) > BuildRequires: zopfli-devel > @@ -32,6 +39,8 @@ on average — 5-8% compared to regular WOFF files. Zopfli generates compressed > output that is compatible with regular zlib compression so the resulting WOFF > files can be used everywhere. > > +A corresponding version of the woff2sfnt utility is also provided. > + > > %prep > %autosetup
Thanks for information about the headers. Changes look good. Testing functionality. Will see if can package fontship.
> Will see if can package fontship. There are still quite a few missing dependencies, including some challenging ones. I’d like to think it might eventually be possible.
One of the missing dependencies is ufo2ft https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091310
It seems to operate as desired. When tested on Chunk https://github.com/theleagueof/chunk converting otf to woff with default setings, it produces a 20K file, and the included woff file in the repository is 26K.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Mozilla Public License 1.1 GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GNU General Public License (v2 or later) or GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 1.1", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License Apache License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sfnt2woff-zopfli/2091282-sfnt2woff- zopfli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: sfnt2woff-zopfli (description) [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: 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. [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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 sfnt2woff-zopfli.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/woff2sfnt-zopfli /lib64/libzopfli.so.1 sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64 sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/woff2sfnt-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64 sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64 sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/woff2sfnt-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/woff2sfnt-zopfli-1.3.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/65/269eaf3cdb34383d3fdf8a7bb7d7691a748074 ../../../.build-id/65/269eaf3cdb34383d3fdf8a7bb7d7691a748074 sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8d/d7248c3f6ab022940a12e0e88f19b1511b539c ../../../.build-id/8d/d7248c3f6ab022940a12e0e88f19b1511b539c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 10 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 2.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bramstein/sfnt2woff-zopfli/archive/v1.3.1/sfnt2woff-zopfli-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1cc0414cf524e14bdfacab4ab1cdefd596a2023ea133e224f9d54566ef8b2a75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1cc0414cf524e14bdfacab4ab1cdefd596a2023ea133e224f9d54566ef8b2a75 Requires -------- sfnt2woff-zopfli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzopfli.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sfnt2woff-zopfli: sfnt2woff-zopfli sfnt2woff-zopfli(x86-64) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo sfnt2woff-zopfli-debuginfo(x86-64) sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource: sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource sfnt2woff-zopfli-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2091282 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Python, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Approved
Thank you for the review! Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47719
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sfnt2woff-zopfli
FEDORA-2022-4ca06280e9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4ca06280e9
FEDORA-2022-acac90db26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-acac90db26
FEDORA-2022-fbeed916ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fbeed916ee
FEDORA-2022-4ca06280e9 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-4ca06280e9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4ca06280e9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-acac90db26 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-acac90db26 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-acac90db26 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-fbeed916ee has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-fbeed916ee \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fbeed916ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-acac90db26 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-fbeed916ee has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-4ca06280e9 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.