Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts-1.002-0.15.20130214.fc37.src.rpm Description: Caladea is metric-compatible with Cambria font. This font is a serif typeface family based on Lato. Fedora Account System Username: pnemade This is a Rename request for the former package 'ht-caladea-fonts'
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97029002
New scratch build -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97030911
This was available before https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 Debian seems to package from GitHub https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-crosextra-caladea A version is also available from Google fonts: https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Caladea though OpenMandriva uses a similar spec: https://github.com/OpenMandrivaAssociation/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts/blob/master/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.spec
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3) > This was available before > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 I know, I was the owner. I think you missed to check that its retired package and to bring it back in Fedora, it needs package review again. > Debian seems to package from GitHub > https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-crosextra-caladea So does we also as ht-caladea-fonts in Fedora currently but as per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2162532 , that font is not following correct metrics. So we need to fallback to older package. > A version is also available from Google fonts: > https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Caladea > though OpenMandriva uses a similar spec: > https://github.com/OpenMandrivaAssociation/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts/ > blob/master/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.spec This is the same spec that I wrote for Fedora packaging.
Can this be reviewed quickly?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [?]: 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/google-crosextra- caladea-fonts/review-google-crosextra-caladea-fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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 [!]: 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: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts-1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38.noarch.rpm google-crosextra-caladea-fonts-1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1o4vmukh')] checks: 31, packages: 2 google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided ht-caladea-fonts google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.002-0.15.20130214 ['1:1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38', '1:1.002-0.15.20130214'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided ht-caladea-fonts google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.002-0.15.20130214 ['1:1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38', '1:1.002-0.15.20130214'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-localmirror/distfiles/crosextrafonts-20130214.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c48d1c2fd613c9c06c959c34da7b8388059e2408d2bb19845dc3ed35f76e4d09 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c48d1c2fd613c9c06c959c34da7b8388059e2408d2bb19845dc3ed35f76e4d09 Requires -------- google-crosextra-caladea-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(google-crosextra-caladea-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- google-crosextra-caladea-fonts: config(google-crosextra-caladea-fonts) font(caladea) google-crosextra-caladea-fonts metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n google-crosextra-caladea-fonts Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Ruby, Python, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Please update version in changelog on import b) Should license file be added? If so, please add on import. otfinfo does give license information, and the URL http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 c) Will check metrics separately, maybe upstream for Caladea will accept a pull request Approved
> Comments: > a) Please update version in changelog on import Thanks, I missed to add Epoch, will add it. > b) Should license file be added? If so, please add on import. otfinfo does > give license information, and the URL > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Okay I can add license file. > c) Will check metrics separately, maybe upstream for Caladea will accept a > pull request Thank you.
Re uploaded with suggested fixes Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts-1.002-0.15.20130214.fc37.src.rpm
Thanks for the fixes. Using FontForge: Caladea - https://fonts.google.com/download?family=Caladea Ascent: 800 Descent: 200 Em Size: 1000 Underline position: -100 Height: 50 Caladea - http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-localmirror/distfiles/crosextrafonts-20130214.tar.gz Ascent: 778 Descent: 222 Em Size: 1000 Underline position: -89 Height: 57 Caladea - GitHub Ascent: 800 Descent: 200 Em Size: 1000 Underline position: -100 Height: 50 Source info at https://github.com/huertatipografica/Caladea/blob/master/sources/ufo/Caladea-Regular.ufo/fontinfo.plist has Ascent: 778 Descent: -222 Em Size: 1000 Underline position: -89 Height: 57 This is not what is in the ttf files on GitHub. So something has been changed when generating the newer ttf files. FontForge could be used to regenerate ttf files: https://fontforge.org/docs/tutorial/editexample7.html Not sure if kerning information has been changed. Updated https://github.com/huertatipografica/Caladea/issues/4 Still need python3-attrs to package fontmake https://github.com/googlefonts/fontmake which maybe easier to use to generate ttf files
Thank you for your detailed comment here. Sometimes I feel though we promote building fonts from source files, it creates problems in Fedora as depending components gets updated at different times. I experienced 1 or 2 times in the past that fontforge when updated in Fedora failed to generate font file where I patched that font's sfd file for some glyph fix. In other instance it simply failed to generate font using fontforge script. Upstream for this font has not been responsive ever since they uploaded/created repo at github. Let's hope we get some reply there soon.