Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/yudit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07899309-yudit-fonts/yudit-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/yudit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07899309-yudit-fonts/yudit-fonts-1.4-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Yudit is the default font bundled with Yudit Unicode editor. It contains Latin with Old Hungarian Rovasiras glyphs with custom encodings. Fedora Account System Username:mitradranirban
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/yudit/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/07910983-yudit-fonts/yudit-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/yudit/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/07910983-yudit-fonts/yudit-fonts-1.4-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Yudit is the default font bundled with Yudit Unicode editor. It contains Latin with Old Hungarian Rovasiras glyphs with custom encodings. Fedora Account System Username:mitradranirban Resubmitted as upstream confirmed changes licence information
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== The "chmod 755 generate.pe" line in %prep does not seem to be needed; generate.pe already has 755 permissions in the tarball. The "./generate.pe *.sfd" line in %prep is not a prep step. That's a build step. It should be moved to %build. Regarding the incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning below, please let upstream know that they should refresh LICENCE. The FSF no longer resides at Franklin Street; see https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-office-closing-party. A current copy can be acquired at: - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt Regarding the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding rpmlint warning below, you can use the %linuxtext macro in %prep, like this: %linuxtext -n README.TXT RPM now supports a VCS tag, to let people know where development happens. For this package, that would look like this (somewhere in the spec file preamble): VCS: git:%{forgeurl}.git I suggest adding that line. This is just a suggestion, not a requirement. ===== 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, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2304005-yudit-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. [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. [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 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 8747 bytes in 3 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). [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: yudit-fonts-1.4-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpctbx2sub')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 yudit-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/yudit-fonts/README.TXT yudit-fonts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/yudit-fonts/LICENCE =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s =========== Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/mitradranirban/yudit-fonts/-/archive/1.4/yudit-fonts-1.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d295bb9fb8ea76afad2aaea956caafee13e0df17ee495af025ea269b26fe89e8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d295bb9fb8ea76afad2aaea956caafee13e0df17ee495af025ea269b26fe89e8 Requires -------- Provides -------- Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2304005 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: R, Python, Java, C/C++, Ruby, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/yudit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08897304-yudit-fonts/yudit-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/yudit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08897304-yudit-fonts/yudit-fonts-1.4-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Yudit is the default font bundled with Yudit Unicode editor. It contains Latin with Old Hungarian Rovasiras glyphs with custom encodings. Fedora Account System Username:mitradranirban Resubmitted with changes suggested by reviewer
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8897318 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2304005-yudit-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08897318-yudit-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.
That looks great. This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/yudit-fonts
FEDORA-2025-42ce9be6ba (yudit-fonts-1.4-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-42ce9be6ba
FEDORA-2025-42ce9be6ba (yudit-fonts-1.4-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.