Bug 2263710 - Review Request: fbf-mukti-fonts - Bangla open source Opentype font
Summary: Review Request: fbf-mukti-fonts - Bangla open source Opentype font
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: 2024-02-11 07:10 UTC by Dr Anirban Mitra
Modified: 2024-07-02 02:34 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-07-02 02:34:13 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7007682 to 7011582 (996 bytes, patch)
2024-02-13 12:07 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Dr Anirban Mitra 2024-02-11 07:10:36 UTC
Unretirement after new version upstream 
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-fonts-all/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07004217-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-fonts-all/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07004217-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: This is a one of the earliest Open Source OpenType Bengali / Bangla font It was made by using good quality glyphs of GPLed font bng2-n from Cyberscape Multimedia 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20021113130716/http://www.akruti.com/freedom/>. It was made for Mukta Bangla Font project.
Fedora Account System Username: mitradranirban

Comment 1 Benson Muite 2024-02-11 14:53:53 UTC
Can you use an SPDX license identifier, probably:
GPL-3.0-or-later WITH Font-exception-2.0
see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-11 16:15:10 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7007682
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2263710-fbf-mukti-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07007682-fbf-mukti-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 4 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-13 12:07:58 UTC
Created attachment 2016594 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7007682 to 7011582

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2024-02-13 12:08:01 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7011582
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2263710-fbf-mukti-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07011582-fbf-mukti-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 6 Benson Muite 2024-02-14 16:10:19 UTC
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/fbf-mukti-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.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "*No
     copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Free
     Documentation License v1.2 or later". 18 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2263710-fbf-mukti-
     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.
[-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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 1964 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.
[ ]: 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 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: fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.3-2.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp5dqi1cgx')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('Bangla', 'Summary(en_US) Bangla -> Bangle, Bang la, Bang-la')
fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('https', '%description -l en_US https -> HTTP')
fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow')
fbf-mukti-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('akruti', '%description -l en_US akruti -> rutting')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/SOURCES/66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151
https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/archive/v3.0.3/fonts-mukti-3.0.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8b13317dacb3c644e9ad394725b8faf59346f661fc8f72aa77011a4cf1ea39ef
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b13317dacb3c644e9ad394725b8faf59346f661fc8f72aa77011a4cf1ea39ef


Requires
--------


Provides
--------


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2263710
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Haskell, R, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Changelog date of Fri Feb 13 2024 is incorrect.
b) Line length in description is too long, should be less than 80 characters.
c) The date is usually sufficient for the changelog, time is not required.
d) Configuration seems ok:
$ fc-query muktibold.otf 
Pattern has 28 elts (size 32)
        family: "Mukti"(s) "মুক্তি"(s)
        familylang: "en"(s) "bn"(s)
        style: "Bold"(s)
        stylelang: "en"(s)
        fullname: "Mukti Bold"(s) "মুক্তি বোল্ড"(s)
        fullnamelang: "en"(s) "bn"(s)
        slant: 0(i)(s)
        weight: 200(f)(s)
        width: 100(f)(s)
        foundry: "fbf "(s)
        file: "muktibold.otf"(s)
        index: 0(i)(s)
        outline: True(s)
        scalable: True(s)
        charset: 
        0000: 00000000 ffffffff f8000001 78000001 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000
        0009: 00000000 00000000 00060000 00000030 fff99fef f3c5fdff b080799f 7fffffcf
        0020: 30003800 00000000 00000010 00000000 00000000 02001000 00000000 00000000
        0025: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00001000 00000000
(s)
        lang: as|bn|mni(s)
        fontversion: 130416(i)(s)
        capability: "otlayout:bng2"(s)
        fontformat: "CFF"(s)
        decorative: False(s)
        postscriptname: "muktibold"(s)
        color: False(s)
        symbol: False(s)
        variable: False(s)
        fonthashint: False(s)
        order: 0(i)(s)
        namedinstance: False(s)
        fontwrapper: "SFNT"(s)

$ fc-query mukti.otf 
Pattern has 28 elts (size 32)
        family: "Mukti"(s) "মুক্তি"(s)
        familylang: "en"(s) "bn"(s)
        style: "Regular"(s) "Book"(s)
        stylelang: "en"(s) "en"(s)
        fullname: "Mukti"(s) "মুক্তি"(s)
        fullnamelang: "en"(s) "bn"(s)
        slant: 0(i)(s)
        weight: 100(f)(s)
        width: 100(f)(s)
        foundry: "fbf "(s)
        file: "mukti.otf"(s)
        index: 0(i)(s)
        outline: True(s)
        scalable: True(s)
        charset: 
        0000: 00000000 ffffffff f8000001 78000001 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000
        0009: 00000000 00000000 00060000 00000030 fff99fef f3c5fdff b080799f 7fffffcf
        0020: 30003800 00000000 00000010 00000000 00000000 02001000 00000000 00000000
        0025: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00001000 00000000
(s)
        lang: as|bn|mni(s)
        fontversion: 130416(i)(s)
        capability: "otlayout:bng2"(s)
        fontformat: "CFF"(s)
        decorative: False(s)
        postscriptname: "Mukti"(s)
        color: False(s)
        symbol: False(s)
        variable: False(s)
        fonthashint: False(s)
        order: 0(i)(s)
        namedinstance: False(s)
        fontwrapper: "SFNT"(s)
e) Thanks for bringing this back to Fedora. Approved. Please fix formatting of spec file before re-importing.

Comment 7 Dr Anirban Mitra 2024-02-15 04:51:10 UTC
Thank for your detail review. I have corrected the specs and will upload the same as soon as the package in unretired by releng team in my issue https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11913

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2024-06-23 11:15:03 UTC
FEDORA-2024-71390de0dc (fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.3-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71390de0dc

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2024-06-24 02:33:26 UTC
FEDORA-2024-71390de0dc has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-71390de0dc`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71390de0dc

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2024-07-02 02:34:13 UTC
FEDORA-2024-71390de0dc (fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.3-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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.