Spec URL: https://nmontero.fedorapeople.org/adwaita-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://nmontero.fedorapeople.org/adwaita-fonts-48.2-2.fc43.src.rpm Description: Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. Fedora Account System Username: nmontero
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8749945 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351347-adwaita-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08749945-adwaita-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.
There is BR: fontforge, but there are not actual font source files there or a build process. Just the prebuilt ttfs...
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/adwaita-fonts/2351347-adwaita- fonts/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/adwaita [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts/adwaita [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: 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]: 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 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 775 bytes in 1 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). 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: adwaita-fonts-48.2-2.fc43.noarch.rpm adwaita-fonts-48.2-2.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/tmpc5kh0oya')] checks: 32, packages: 2 adwaita-fonts.noarch: E: summary-too-long Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. adwaita-fonts.src: E: summary-too-long Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. adwaita-fonts.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. adwaita-fonts.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. adwaita-fonts.spec:22: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 22, tab: line 13) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 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 adwaita-fonts.noarch: E: summary-too-long Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. adwaita-fonts.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/adwaita-fonts/48/adwaita-fonts-48.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 156f7e92f2f82e527fc73c309dbb237c0a4a5c3a95bc5ee94a5efb6947c553e0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 156f7e92f2f82e527fc73c309dbb237c0a4a5c3a95bc5ee94a5efb6947c553e0 Requires -------- adwaita-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- adwaita-fonts: adwaita-fonts font(adwaitamono) font(adwaitasans) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/adwaita-fonts/2351347-adwaita-fonts/srpm/adwaita-fonts.spec 2025-03-11 15:44:23.433690583 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/adwaita-fonts/2351347-adwaita-fonts/srpm-unpacked/adwaita-fonts.spec 2025-03-11 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global tarball_version %%(echo %{version} | tr '~' '.') @@ -40,3 +50,10 @@ %{_datadir}/fonts/adwaita/* -%autochangelog \ No newline at end of file +%changelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Mar 11 2025 nmontero <nmontero> - 48.2-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Wed Feb 19 2025 nmontero <nmontero> - 48.2-1 +- New package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2351347 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Python, Java, Ocaml, R, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please see the font packaging guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ in particular, please add a fontconfig file and use the defined macros b) Fonts are under OFL license, GPL is only for code c) fontforge is not needed as noted above, use the template to get required packages as the fonts are already available as ttf files
Created attachment 2079708 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8749945 to 8750717
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8750717 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351347-adwaita-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08750717-adwaita-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.
just a few comments: * According to our Packaging guidelines for fonts at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_assembling_same_family_font_packages:~:text=This%20core%20package%20MUST%20be%20named%20as%20if%20it%20contained%20the%20whole%20font%20family.: This core package MUST be named as if it contained the whole font family. So you must have two sub-packages, adwaita-sans-fonts for AdwaitaSans-*.ttf and adwaita-mono-fonts for AdwaitaMono-*.ttf. * Also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_fontconfig:~:text=Font%20packages%20SHOULD%20include%20the%20fontconfig%20files%2C%20that%20define%20the%20selection%20and%20substitution%20rules%20applying%20to%20their%20font%20files%2C Font packages SHOULD include the fontconfig files, that define the selection and substitution rules applying to their font files, There are some template config file in fonts-rpm-templates package. See /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/basic-font-template.conf for example. * Missing %changelog in prior to %autochangelog. See https://fedora-infra.github.io/rpmautospec-docs/opting-in.html#using-the-autochangelog-macro
Small thing: I don't think it makes sense to include "build system for" in the %description. (Maybe the upstream project is the "build system" for these fonts, but it is not really relevant info for end-users.)
Created attachment 2079796 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8750717 to 8753129
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753129 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351347-adwaita-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08753129-adwaita-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.
Hey, I made the requested changes, please let me know if there's something I didn't modify correctly or I should add/change.
still missing an action for: > Font packages SHOULD include the fontconfig files, that define the selection and substitution rules applying to their font files, You need to write your own fontconfig config files for adwaita-sans-fonts and adwaita-mono-fonts according to the above template I mentioned. I assume that this is used for GNOME only and changes will be done by gsettings-desktop-schemas. something what you need would be: 59-adwaita-sans-fonts.conf: --->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "urn:fontconfig:fonts.dtd"> <fontconfig> <alias> <family>sans-serif</family> <prefer> <family>Adwaita Sans</family> </prefer> </alias> <alias> <family>Adwaita Sans</family> <default> <family>sans-serif</family> </default> </alias> </fontconfig> --->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8 and 59-adwaita-mono-fonts.conf: --->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "urn:fontconfig:fonts.dtd"> <fontconfig> <alias> <family>monospace</family> <prefer> <family>Adwaita Mono</family> </prefer> </alias> <alias> <family>Adwaita Mono</family> <default> <family>monospace</family> </default> </alias> </fontconfig> --->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8--->8 The priority 59 should basically works for the desktop specific fonts since they have own config to make it default. You could also add similar for system-ui in adwaita-sans-fonts.
Spec URL: https://nmontero.fedorapeople.org/adwaita-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://nmontero.fedorapeople.org/adwaita-fonts-48.2-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Build system for Adwaita Sans, a variation of Inter, and Adwaita Mono, Iosevka customized to match Inter. Fedora Account System Username: nmontero
Created attachment 2080518 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8753129 to 8772882
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8772882 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351347-adwaita-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08772882-adwaita-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.
Created attachment 2080519 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8772882 to 8772905
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8772905 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351347-adwaita-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08772905-adwaita-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.
Created attachment 2080521 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8772905 to 8773130
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8773130 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351347-adwaita-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08773130-adwaita-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.
I'll take this over to speed up the process. One thing that be nice to fix is: adwaita-fonts.spec:16: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 16) Otherwise that looks good to me. Here is the details: 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/tagoh/2351347-adwaita-fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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 1550 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). [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. [-]: 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. 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: adwaita-mono-fonts-48.2-2.fc43.noarch.rpm adwaita-fonts-all-48.2-2.fc43.noarch.rpm adwaita-fonts-48.2-2.fc43.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/tmp6phvmzre')] checks: 32, packages: 3 adwaita-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation adwaita-fonts.spec:16: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 16) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 2 adwaita-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/adwaita-fonts/48/adwaita-fonts-48.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 156f7e92f2f82e527fc73c309dbb237c0a4a5c3a95bc5ee94a5efb6947c553e0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 156f7e92f2f82e527fc73c309dbb237c0a4a5c3a95bc5ee94a5efb6947c553e0 Requires -------- adwaita-mono-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(adwaita-mono-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem adwaita-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): adwaita-mono-fonts adwaita-sans-fonts Provides -------- adwaita-mono-fonts: adwaita-mono-fonts config(adwaita-mono-fonts) font(adwaitamono) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.adwaita-mono-fonts.metainfo.xml) adwaita-fonts-all: adwaita-fonts-all Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2351347 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Python, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adwaita-fonts
Could we add it to F41 too, if it makes sense? I know Adwaita Fonts isn't part of GNOME 47 but some people might still want to test out there.
Sure, done!