Bug 2257137 - Review Request: rit-keraleeyam-fonts - Display style traditional script font for Malayalam
Summary: Review Request: rit-keraleeyam-fonts - Display style traditional script font ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
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: 2024-01-07 05:43 UTC by Rajeesh
Modified: 2025-07-05 10:02 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-06-23 03:54:19 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6869126 to 6869157 (356 bytes, patch)
2024-01-07 06:58 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9092431 to 9103636 (2.33 KB, patch)
2025-05-30 07:02 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9103636 to 9188968 (1.41 KB, patch)
2025-06-19 18:32 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Rajeesh 2024-01-07 05:43:03 UTC
Spec URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.1-0.src.rpm
Description: Keraleeyam is a thick san-serif display style font in condensed form for Malayalam traditional script.
Fedora Account System Username: rajeeshknambiar

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-07 05:44:46 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6869126
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257137-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06869126-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Rajeesh 2024-01-07 06:55:33 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-07 06:58:37 UTC
Created attachment 2007535 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6869126 to 6869157

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-07 06:58:39 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6869157
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257137-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06869157-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 5 Package Review 2025-01-07 00:45:22 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 6 Benson Muite 2025-05-27 13:36:13 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2025-05-27 13:38:16 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9092431
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257137-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09092431-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 8 Benson Muite 2025-05-27 15:48:47 UTC
Comments:
a) Please update to latest release 3.2.1
b) Please use the build script to build TTF/OTF fonts:
https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/rit-keraleeyam/-/blob/main/build/buildfont.py

Comment 9 Rajeesh 2025-05-30 07:00:53 UTC
Thank you very much for the review!

Updated spec and srpm; particularly to use pre-built fonts as per recent communication with RHEL fonts team.

SPEC URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.2.1-0.src.rpm

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2025-05-30 07:02:54 UTC
Created attachment 2092217 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9092431 to 9103636

Comment 11 Fedora Review Service 2025-05-30 07:02:56 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9103636
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257137-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09103636-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 13 Rajeesh 2025-05-31 04:06:28 UTC
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12)
> Thanks for the update. Is it possible to add fontconfig files?
> See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/
> #_fontconfig
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/
> #_fontconfig_3

For Malayalam fonts, we (Fedora) already have serif (RIT-Rachana) and sans-serif (RIT-MeeraNew) specified via appropriate font config. I wasn't sure (also with upstream maintainer hats on) whether these supplementary fonts require fontconfig. But I think, at least generic mapping to 'sans-serif' could be added.
I'll add the fontconfig rules upstream and make a point release; then update this review request.

> Some recently orphaned examples that maybe of interest to adopt:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-dyuthi-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts

I used to maintain these fonts; but they are obsolete.

Comment 14 Rajeesh 2025-05-31 09:36:45 UTC
New upstream release created with fontconfig.

Updated spec and srpm.

SPEC URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.2.2-0.src.rpm

Comment 15 Benson Muite 2025-05-31 09:49:24 UTC
Thanks. Please reference source as indicated at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

Source:  https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/rit-%{fontfamily}/-/archive/%{version}/rit-%{fontfamily}-%{version}.tar.gz

If
%setup -qc
does not work consider using
%autosetup -n rit-%{fontfamily}-%{version}

Comment 16 Rajeesh 2025-05-31 10:02:23 UTC
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #15)
> Thanks. Please reference source as indicated at:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
> #_git_tags
> 
> Source: 
> https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/rit-%{fontfamily}/-/archive/%{version}/rit-
> %{fontfamily}-%{version}.tar.gz
 
Thank you for the quick review.

To clarify again, we're not using the source and build the font in Fedora; but using pre-built font provided by upstream. Unfortunately GitLab (where upstream is hosted) doesn't provide a stable/static URL for the built artifacts.

This source URL mechanism is followed in default Malayalam fonts in Fedora: rit-rachana-fonts and rit-meeranew-fonts.
Hope this clarifies.

Comment 17 Benson Muite 2025-06-08 10:16:14 UTC
GitLab does seem to provide stable static URL, though may need to indicate expiration date for artifacts

https://docs.gitlab.com/ci/jobs/job_artifacts/

Using
Source0:  %{url}/-/jobs/artifacts/%{version}/download?job=build-tag#/download

seems to allow for a download.

Fedora does not seem to use the metainfo.xml file, but maybe this is still useful
in applications.  It is not mentioned in the font packaging guidelines.  It does not
block the review to install it, but am curious how it is used.

The font configuration file
https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/MeeraNew/-/blob/main/meta/65-meera-new-fonts.conf
is very good. Can something similar be used for rit-keraleeyam ? As the number
75 for keraleeyam is higher than 65 for meera, if both are installed meera
will be chosen as the default, but if only keraleeyam is installed it will be
used instead.  It is sufficient to apply a patch rather than make a new release.

Comment 18 Rajeesh 2025-06-10 04:16:28 UTC
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #17)

> Source0:  %{url}/-/jobs/artifacts/%{version}/download?job=build-tag#/download

Only, it doesn't result in a %{name}-%{version}.zip file. curl, which rpmbuild uses, generates a file named 'download'. If only that can be worked around...


> Fedora does not seem to use the metainfo.xml file, but maybe this is still
> useful
> in applications.  It is not mentioned in the font packaging guidelines.  It
> does not
> block the review to install it, but am curious how it is used.

The metainfo.xml contains AppStream data, consumed by GUI 'app stores' like GNOME Software and Discover to show the font previews.


> The font configuration file
> https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/MeeraNew/-/blob/main/meta/65-meera-new-fonts.
> conf
> is very good. Can something similar be used for rit-keraleeyam ? As the
> number
> 75 for keraleeyam is higher than 65 for meera, if both are installed meera
> will be chosen as the default, but if only keraleeyam is installed it will be
> used instead.  It is sufficient to apply a patch rather than make a new
> release.

So, MeeraNew is the default sans-serif font, intended for general use. Keraleeyam, on the other hand is a display typeface (no regular style, only bold) intended for specific typesetting use cases. It shouldn't be used as a general fallback font.

Comment 19 Benson Muite 2025-06-10 07:49:27 UTC
(In reply to Rajeesh from comment #18)
> (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #17)
> 
> > Source0:  %{url}/-/jobs/artifacts/%{version}/download?job=build-tag#/download
> 
> Only, it doesn't result in a %{name}-%{version}.zip file. curl, which
> rpmbuild uses, generates a file named 'download'. If only that can be worked
> around...

It can. See
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9148897

> 
> 
> > Fedora does not seem to use the metainfo.xml file, but maybe this is still
> > useful
> > in applications.  It is not mentioned in the font packaging guidelines.  It
> > does not
> > block the review to install it, but am curious how it is used.
> 
> The metainfo.xml contains AppStream data, consumed by GUI 'app stores' like
> GNOME Software and Discover to show the font previews.

Thanks. Will update font packaging guidelines.  Some of the information is the
same as in the font configuration file, so maybe tooling can be helpful in
reducing maintenance burden.

> 
> 
> > The font configuration file
> > https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/MeeraNew/-/blob/main/meta/65-meera-new-fonts.
> > conf
> > is very good. Can something similar be used for rit-keraleeyam ? As the
> > number
> > 75 for keraleeyam is higher than 65 for meera, if both are installed meera
> > will be chosen as the default, but if only keraleeyam is installed it will be
> > used instead.  It is sufficient to apply a patch rather than make a new
> > release.
> 
> So, MeeraNew is the default sans-serif font, intended for general use.
> Keraleeyam, on the other hand is a display typeface (no regular style, only
> bold) intended for specific typesetting use cases. It shouldn't be used as a
> general fallback font.

Ok.

Comment 20 Rajeesh 2025-06-10 09:38:59 UTC
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #19)
> (In reply to Rajeesh from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #17)
> > 
> > > Source0:  %{url}/-/jobs/artifacts/%{version}/download?job=build-tag#/download
> > 
> > Only, it doesn't result in a %{name}-%{version}.zip file. curl, which
> > rpmbuild uses, generates a file named 'download'. If only that can be worked
> > around...
> 
> It can. See
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9148897

Thank you. Checking the build log indeed shows that the source name is `download`:

...
+ cd rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.2.2
+ /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x /builddir/build/SOURCES/download
+ STATUS=0
...


How can we manage such unversioned sources in Fedora source repository, especially with `fedpkg new-sources ...`?

Comment 21 Benson Muite 2025-06-11 15:12:27 UTC
fedpkg new-sources will work ok.  The hash of the file is computed, so it is possible to track differences.

Comment 22 Rajeesh 2025-06-14 05:21:04 UTC
Figured out a way to get the source from GitLab named to our liking. Updated spec and srpm.

SPEC URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.2.2-1.src.rpm

Comment 23 Benson Muite 2025-06-19 18:30:57 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 24 Fedora Review Service 2025-06-19 18:32:44 UTC
Created attachment 2094437 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9103636 to 9188968

Comment 25 Fedora Review Service 2025-06-19 18:32:46 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9188968
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257137-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09188968-rit-keraleeyam-fonts/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 26 Benson Muite 2025-06-20 05:38:59 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "SIL Open
     Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 8 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/rit-kalayam-
     fonts/2257137-rit-keraleeyam-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
[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.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 2798 bytes in 2 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.
[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.
[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:
[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 fc-query on all fonts in package.
     Note: Cannot find fc-query command, install fontconfig package to make
     a comprehensive font review.
     See: url: undefined
[!]: 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


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.2.2-1.noarch.rpm
          rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.2.2-1.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpzc73ys8z')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/rit-keraleeyam/-/jobs/artifacts/3.2.2/download?job=build-tag#/rit-keraleeyam-3.2.2.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 66cacd03dda6b25d447f93a97c3ea5af281f294b6a6b69591ba2819c49816a80
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66cacd03dda6b25d447f93a97c3ea5af281f294b6a6b69591ba2819c49816a80


Requires
--------
rit-keraleeyam-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(rit-keraleeyam-fonts)
    fontpackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
rit-keraleeyam-fonts:
    config(rit-keraleeyam-fonts)
    font(ritkeraleeyam)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(in.org.rachana.keraleeyam.metainfo.xml)
    rit-keraleeyam-fonts



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257137
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, fonts, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, R, Perl, Python, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Thanks for the changes. One minor fix needed.
75-rit-keraleeyam-fonts.conf
is under MIT license, so perhaps

%global fontlicenses    fonts/LICENSE.txt
%global fontdocs        fonts/*.md

should be

%global fontlicense     OFL-1.1-RFN
%license                MIT
%global fontlicenses    fonts/LICENSE.txt
%global fontdocs        fonts/*.md

Checking on the fonts list.

Comment 27 Rajeesh 2025-06-21 04:08:05 UTC
Thanks for the review.

License field updated per Fedora guidelines as

%global fontlicense     OFL-1.1-RFN AND MIT

SPEC URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rit-keraleeyam-fonts-3.2.2-2.src.rpm

Comment 28 Benson Muite 2025-06-21 08:14:30 UTC
Ok, approved. Thanks for your patience.

Comment 29 Rajeesh 2025-06-21 10:36:33 UTC
Thank you for your review, and queries that improved the spec!

Comment 30 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-06-21 10:40:03 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rit-keraleeyam-fonts

Comment 31 Miro Hrončok 2025-07-03 18:49:29 UTC
> Issues:
> =======
> - Dist tag is present.

The dist tag is not present. I would send a Pull Request but I hit a technical issue with that (https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12805)

See here instead:


commit 5b8b65ef6302186e252984c24960ede882552d46 (HEAD -> dist)
Author: Miro Hrončok <miro>
Date:   Thu Jul 3 20:44:46 2025 +0200

    Add %dist tag to Release
    
    Use of the %{?dist} tag is mandatory in Fedora.
    
    https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/

diff --git a/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec b/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
index 6ab17af..6dbc301 100644
--- a/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
+++ b/rit-keraleeyam-fonts.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
 Version: 3.2.2
-Release: 2
+Release: 2%{?dist}
 URL:     https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/rit-%{fontfamily}
 
 %global foundry         RIT

Comment 32 Rajeesh 2025-07-04 03:21:31 UTC
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #31)
> > Issues:
> > =======
> > - Dist tag is present.
> 
> The dist tag is not present. I would send a Pull Request but I hit a
> technical issue with that (https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12805)

Ouch, my bad. But rpmlint didn't complain about missing %{dist} tag; that would have been useful.

I'll wait a couple of days before pushing the update; not sure if all the services are back up after data center move.

Comment 33 Miro Hrončok 2025-07-04 15:05:02 UTC
Can I push my commit as provenpackager? I can build it as well, it seems to be possible now.

Comment 34 Rajeesh 2025-07-05 03:39:24 UTC
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #33)
> Can I push my commit as provenpackager? I can build it as well, it seems to
> be possible now.

Yes, please.


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