Bug 2214624 - Review Request: intelone-mono-fonts - An expressive monospaced font family
Summary: Review Request: intelone-mono-fonts - An expressive monospaced font family
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Benson Muite
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-06-13 16:23 UTC by Arthur Bols
Modified: 2023-07-07 17:33 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-07-07 17:33:54 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Arthur Bols 2023-06-13 16:23:40 UTC
Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/intel-one-mono-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/intel-one-mono-fonts-1.2.1-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: Intel One Mono is an expressive monospaced font family that’s built with clarity, legibility, and the needs of developers in mind.
Fedora Account System Username: principis

Comment 1 Benson Muite 2023-07-01 01:53:01 UTC
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]: 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", "SIL Open
     Font License 1.0", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 13879
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/intel-one-
     monofonts/2214624-intel-one-mono-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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: 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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: intel-one-mono-fonts-1.2.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          intel-one-mono-fonts-1.2.1-1.fc39.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/tmpkmzm8c2f')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

======================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.0 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

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/intel/intel-one-mono/archive/V1.2.1/intel-one-mono-fonts-V1.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 39930fc430335c44493d24d2c7561d4fc88bda8b8feec73557514a225ac4c897
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39930fc430335c44493d24d2c7561d4fc88bda8b8feec73557514a225ac4c897


Requires
--------
intel-one-mono-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(intel-one-mono-fonts)
    fontpackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
intel-one-mono-fonts:
    config(intel-one-mono-fonts)
    font(intelonemono)
    font(intelonemonobold)
    font(intelonemonolight)
    font(intelonemonomedium)
    intel-one-mono-fonts
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.fedoraproject.intel-one-mono-fonts.metainfo.xml)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2214624
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Java, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

a) Should the foundry be FRJN as listed at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/
if so, then probably the name should be
FRJN-intel-one-mono-fonts
b) A number of files have SIL OFL 1.0, perhaps raise an issue upstream
SIL Open Font License 1.0
-------------------------
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-bold.otf
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-bolditalic.otf
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-italic.otf
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-light.otf
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-lightitalic.otf
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-medium.otf
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-mediumitalic.otf
intel-one-mono-1.2.1/fonts/otf/intelone-mono-font-family-regular.otf

Comment 2 Arthur Bols 2023-07-01 20:28:07 UTC
Hi Benson, thanks for the review!

> a) Should the foundry be FRJN as listed at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/
> if so, then probably the name should be
> FRJN-intel-one-mono-fonts
That seems to be the correct foundry, but I'm not sure if it's needed. There is currently only a single font family published and it has quite a niche use case. I think it's clearer to users if it's left out.

> b) A number of files have SIL OFL 1.0, perhaps raise an issue upstream
> SIL Open Font License 1.0
This seems to be a bug in licensecheck. I checked with exiftool, the files do show SIL 1.1. I'll open an issue in the licensecheck project.

Comment 3 Benson Muite 2023-07-02 02:54:31 UTC
The spec file contains:
%global foundry           Intel
should this be updated?

Ok on license.

Comment 4 Arthur Bols 2023-07-02 10:04:11 UTC
Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/intelone-mono-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/intelone-mono-fonts-1.2.1-1.fc38.src.rpm

> The spec file contains:
> %global foundry           Intel
> should this be updated?
Indeed, thanks for catching that! This changed the name of the package, so here is also the updated spec and srpm.

Comment 5 Benson Muite 2023-07-02 12:54:41 UTC
That seems fine. Approved.

Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218461 would be appreciated if time allows.

Comment 6 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-07-07 17:15:28 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intelone-mono-fonts

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2023-07-07 17:31:53 UTC
FEDORA-2023-96e69d2952 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-96e69d2952

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-07-07 17:33:54 UTC
FEDORA-2023-96e69d2952 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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