Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/firago-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/08916092-firago-fonts/firago-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/firago-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/08916092-firago-fonts/firago-fonts-1.001-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: An independent Open Source typeface Fedora Account System Username: mateusrodcosta
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8916213 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360799-firago-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08916213-firago-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.
Hi, so here's a bunch of notes that I believe might help in the review process. I looked into adopting and updating the mozilla-fira-fonts package and it turned out a bit more complex than I expected, with even the chance of me having to port from older macros to newer ones. So I though that since I was going to sumbit FiraGO eventually anyway, why not package it first? So, for FiraGO I had two ways of getting the fonts: 1) Grabbing from Github at https://github.com/bBoxType/FiraGO, the problem with this approach is that there is a 1.000 tag but not a 1.001 tags, menaing I would need to clone a specific commit of the repo 2) Download from the foundry at https://bboxtype.com/typefaces/FiraGO/ via https://bboxtype.com/downloads/FiraGO/Download_Folder_FiraGO_1001.zip, however the OFL license file isn't included and has to be downloaded separately (https://bboxtype.com/downloads/FiraGO/OFL.txt) I chose approach 2. I based the spec on the `spectemplate-fonts-0-simple.spec` template. But I had issues with the following macros: %global foundry - People on the Fedora Devel Matrix room said that this foundry wasn't a "registered foundry" or something along those lines, so apaprently I don't need to fill this %global fontlicenses - Couldn't get the package build to accept the downloaded OFL.txt file %global fontdocs - I was planning to add the technical documentation PDFs here, but either I had uses escaping spaces or it said the file didn't exist, so eventually I gave up %global fontdocsex - it apparently depends on the previous two, so removed as well I did forget to look into fontconfig priority though.
GitHub history indicates when 1.001 was uploaded: https://github.com/bBoxType/FiraGO/commits/master/
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3) > GitHub history indicates when 1.001 was uploaded: > https://github.com/bBoxType/FiraGO/commits/master/ Just to clarify, is that suggesting I should clone the repo using something such as `%forgemeta` macros instead of downloading the zip available on the official website?
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. [!]: 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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 642 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/firago-fonts/2360799-firago- 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 [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 0 bytes in 0 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: 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: firago-fonts-1.001-1.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/tmp4_6qsg8i')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://bboxtype.com/downloads/FiraGO/OFL.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e44ab0daf1a4e0c71d141fec66a09d157edee00b1a24f441425e2dbb824d5018 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e44ab0daf1a4e0c71d141fec66a09d157edee00b1a24f441425e2dbb824d5018 https://bboxtype.com/downloads/FiraGO/Download_Folder_FiraGO_1001.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d3866120498c496931265a7b199dc0a54f44330170dde1178bb982fffcc6bb52 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3866120498c496931265a7b199dc0a54f44330170dde1178bb982fffcc6bb52 Requires -------- Provides -------- Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2360799 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, fonts, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, R, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) after 9882ba0, the commits just change the README so commit 9882ba0 or anything after it is a reasonable choice - this should give a source with the license file, but this is not blocking. b) If you choose not to package a commit, the license file must be packaged. Change: %global fontlicense OFL-1.1 to %global fontlicense OFL-1.1 %global fontlicenses OFL.txt and change %autosetup -n Download_Folder_FiraGO_%{version_nodots} -a 0 to %autosetup -n Download_Folder_FiraGO_%{version_nodots} -a 0 cp %{SOURCE1} . to ensure the license file is in the expected location. b) Contact upstream and ask them to register: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/register c) In the font description, limit line length to 80 characters d) Consider using %autorelease and %autochangelog macros - not blocking though. e) the font configuraion file usually has a number in front of it. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Choosing_a_ruleset_numeral_prefix for how to choose one.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/firago-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/09018862-firago-fonts/firago-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/firago-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/09018862-firago-fonts/firago-fonts-1.001-2.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2089401 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8916213 to 9018870
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9018870 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360799-firago-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09018870-firago-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.
Any updates on this?
bBoxType is a registered foundry with vendor id BBOX: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/ Hence the font name should be bbox-firago-fonts The link given for the foundry https://bboxtype.com/ now directs to https://carrois.com/ so may want to check with carrois if bbox is still the correct vendor id.
I messaged the Carrois guys about the foundry id last Saturday, no response so far. So I'm moving forward with the "BBOX" foundry id, the "bbox-" package prefix and I have updated all URLs to point to the new website equivalents.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/firago-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/09161702-bbox-firago-fonts/bbox-firago-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mateusrodcosta/firago-fonts/fedora-42-x86_64/09161702-bbox-firago-fonts/bbox-firago-fonts-1.001-3.fc42.src.rpm
First of all, thank you for your hard work. According to the new site, "Carrois Type Design is a label of bBox Type GmbH", so settling on "bbox-" is likely a good call.
Thanks, Approved. Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362760 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373134 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373132 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bbox-firago-fonts