Bug 225618 - Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts
Summary: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nicolas Mailhot
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 17:45 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2018-04-11 07:01 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-12-17 20:15:34 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 17:45:59 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts

Initial Owner: besfahbo@redhat.com

Comment 1 Roozbeh Pournader 2007-02-03 13:56:57 UTC
Is this package still necessary? I mean, doesn't dejavu-lgc-fonts deprecate this?

Comment 2 Behdad Esfahbod 2007-02-03 15:56:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Is this package still necessary? I mean, doesn't dejavu-lgc-fonts deprecate this?

So it can live in Extras? :)

Many people still use Bitstream Vera because DejaVu is poorly hinted.

Comment 3 Roozbeh Pournader 2007-02-04 02:58:06 UTC
Generlly fine. Partial review:
* Consider using %{?dist} in Release (mostly useful for upgrades, as different
distro versions tend to need to have different scriptlets always).

* rpmlint output:

E: bitstream-vera-fonts description-line-too-long the licensing FAQ in
/usr/share/doc/bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10/COPYRIGHT.TXT or the
W: bitstream-vera-fonts invalid-license Redistributable, with restrictions

  Both should be fixed.

* Use "-p" option to install in %install

* This:
    %dir %{fontdir}
  could be replaced with this:

* Uses /usr/share/fonts without owning it or depending on a package that does

Comment 4 Matěj Cepl 2007-02-12 22:15:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Many people still use Bitstream Vera because DejaVu is poorly hinted.

Just for record, this seems to be an urban legend -- just asked on #dejavu and
their comment was that this is nonsense, because all hinting was copied from
(and some more fixed) from Vera.

Comment 5 Matthias Clasen 2007-08-11 00:15:01 UTC
I've fiexed the license and shortened the description line.

Comment 6 Matthias Saou 2007-09-01 18:07:26 UTC
I'm a little confused. Who is the initial owner and who is doing the review? :-)
Seems like Behdad is the initial owner and Matthias the reviewer, but then
shouldn't the bug be assigned to Matthias and Behdad the one doing the changes
on the package? And be ASSIGNED instead of NEW?

If you're co-maintainers and need an "external" reviewer, I volunteer ;-)

Comment 7 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-07-04 21:54:47 UTC
Does this still need to be reviewed?

Comment 8 Behdad Esfahbod 2008-07-04 23:12:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> Does this still need to be reviewed?

Not if you have something to say.

Comment 9 Matthias Clasen 2008-07-11 19:09:43 UTC
Moving this back to nobody to see if someone actually wants to pick this review

Comment 10 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-07-12 13:44:21 UTC
Ok, since this is languishing in neither-land I'll do a formal review now (seems
I've spent the week reviewing font packages anyway)

Comment 11 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-07-12 14:03:37 UTC
Formal review:

OK  | MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package…
rpmlint *rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK  | MUST: The package must be named according to the Package…
OK  | MUST: The spec file name must match the base package…
NOK | MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines…

There's nothing terribly wrong with the package, but our font guidelines have
evolved a little since it was created, and it's time to re-sync it with the
fonts spec template in rpmdevtools. (since it's unlikely a new upstream
version will ever cause a package refresh)

I like to see a minimal diff when I compare a font spec to the current
template in meld.

OK  | MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved…
OK  | MUST: The License field in the package spec file must…
OK  | MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the…
OK  | MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK  | MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK  | MUST: The sources used to build the package must match… 
OK  | MUST: The package must successfully compile and build…
N/A | MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build 
OK  | MUST: All build dependencies must be listed…
N/A | MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly…
N/A | MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared…
N/A | MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable…
OK  | MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates
OK  | MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files 
OK  | MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
OK  | MUST: Each package must have a %clean section
OK  | MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
OK  | MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable
N/A | MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc 
N/A | MUST: If a package includes something as %doc…
N/A | MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A | MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A | MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must…
N/A | MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix…
N/A | MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must…
N/A | MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, 
N/A | MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include…
OK  | MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already
OK  | MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST…
OK  | MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
N/A | SHOULD: If the source package does not include license 
-   | SHOULD: The description and summary section … translations…
OK  | SHOULD: The package builds in mock
-   | SHOULD: The package builds on all supported architectures
OK  | SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package…
OK  | SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane…
N/A | SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should usually require base…
N/A | SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on…
N/A | SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of shortlist…

Comment 12 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-07-12 14:13:35 UTC
In addition please add a wiki page on this package on

using the following template

This won't make the package any better but will give Google and our users some
visibility on available fonts in Fedora, contributing to our world domination plan.

That's all for this review. Reciprocating with a review of bug #261881, bug 
#452663, bug #454175, or even bug #454176 would be appreciated

Comment 13 Behdad Esfahbod 2008-07-13 12:39:53 UTC
What info should I provide Nicolas?

Comment 14 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-07-13 12:58:50 UTC
Just provide the info you've done what's asked in the review so I can close this
bug at last :p

Comment 15 Behdad Esfahbod 2008-07-27 16:59:46 UTC
Nicolas, can't we either close this OBSOLETE, or you make whatever changes you
like? :)

Comment 16 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-10-10 20:57:42 UTC
I don't think one is supposed to be both the reviewer and the modifier in a fedora merge ticket :(. Now that I've done the review part someone else needs to apply it.

Comment 17 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-17 20:15:34 UTC
Spec updated to latest guidelines as part of the F11 fonts packaging guidelines change

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