spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/ektype-baloo-2-fonts.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc41.src.rpm description: The Baloo 2 project consists of nine font families with unique local names for each of the nine Indic scripts. Each family supports one Indic script plus Latin, Latin Extended, and Vietnamese. - Baloo 2 for Devanagari - Baloo Bhai 2 for Gujarati - Baloo Bhaina 2 for Odia - Baloo Chettan 2 for Malayalam - Baloo Da 2 for Bengali - Baloo Paaji 2 for Gurmukhi - Baloo Tamma 2 for Kannada - Baloo Tammudu 2 for Telugu - Baloo Thambi 2 for Tamil It took a team of committed type designers to rear Baloo and raise it to be the typeface we love. The Gurmukhi is designed by Shuchita Grover; Bangla by Noopur Datye and Sulekha Rajkumar; Odia by Yesha Goshar, Manish Minz, and Shuchita Grover; Gujarati by Noopur Datye and Supriya Tembe; Kannada by Divya Kowshik and Shuchita Grover; Telugu by Maithili Shingre and Omkar Shende; Malayalam by Maithili Shingre and Unnati Kotecha; and Tamil by Aadarsh Rajan. Baloo Devanagari and Latin are collaboratively designed by Ek Type. Font engineering and type design assistance by Girish Dalvi. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: Review Request: ektype-baloo-2-fonts - As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build]. --- 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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9080047 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368535-ektype-baloo-2-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09080047-ektype-baloo-2-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 a look at this.
A few questions/comments after looking roughly: * There are no strict rules for font meta packages at the moment though, what's the reason you didn't simply follow the default naming rule of %fontmetapkg macro and have an own name of ektype-baloo-2-all? The default name is obvious from its package name that it is a meta package for font but ektype-baloo-2-all isn't. * Indic fonts are categorized under "Fonts with less common encodings" in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt from fonts-rpm-templates. Using 60 in config file is too high. that breaks default font sets. Recommended priority number for optional fonts would be between 66 and 69. * You shouldn't abbrivate a generic family name like sans in your config. it should be sans-serif. * You don't need to test "en" for "lang" in your config. I don't think it works as expected. * For ektype-ballo-2-fonts.conf, multiple test elements means AND operator. I think what you want to do is to have multiple <match>es per lang.
Thanks for your feedback. (In reply to Akira TAGOH from comment #5) > A few questions/comments after looking roughly: > > * There are no strict rules for font meta packages at the moment though, > what's the reason you didn't simply follow the default naming rule of > %fontmetapkg macro and have an own name of ektype-baloo-2-all? The default > name is obvious from its package name that it is a meta package for font but > ektype-baloo-2-all isn't. Left defaults. The package name also refers to the Devanagari font package, so all is still added to the metapackage. > > * Indic fonts are categorized under "Fonts with less common encodings" in > /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt from > fonts-rpm-templates. Using 60 in config file is too high. that breaks > default font sets. Recommended priority number for optional fonts would be > between 66 and 69. > Done used 67. > * You shouldn't abbrivate a generic family name like sans in your config. it > should be sans-serif. > Done. > * You don't need to test "en" for "lang" in your config. I don't think it > works as expected. > Done. > * For ektype-ballo-2-fonts.conf, multiple test elements means AND operator. > I think what you want to do is to have multiple <match>es per lang. Done. spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/ektype-baloo-2-fonts.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2092112 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9080047 to 9100170
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9100170 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368535-ektype-baloo-2-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09100170-ektype-baloo-2-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.
Thank you for updating but need one more update. I should described an example for correction for config or good to take a look at https://pagure.io/fonts-rpm-macros/blob/main/f/templates/fontconfig/l10n-font-template.conf The expected behavior here would be to "add Ektype Baloo * as a substitute of sans-serif for lang xx" (in other words, if lang is xx AND family is sans-serif, and then add Ektype Baloo * in prior to the matched family) though, <test name="lang" .../> and then <edit .../> means "add Ektype Baloo * for lang xx anyway". also <test name="family"><string>sans-serif</string></test> and then <edit .../> means "add Ektype Baloo * as a substitute of sans-serif anyway". So you are missing "test sans-serif" in each <match>es for lang and no need to have "test sans-serif" only. So you may want to update like: <match> <test name="lang" compare="contains"> <string>mr</string> </test> <test name="family"> <string>sans-serif</string> </test> <edit name="family" mode="prepend"> <string>Ektype Baloo 2</string> </edit> </match> and do similar for other langs and fonts.
Thanks. Updated spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/ektype-baloo-2-fonts.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc41.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9103887 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368535-ektype-baloo-2-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09103887-ektype-baloo-2-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.
Thanks. it all looks good to me. APPROVED. 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. [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", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 312 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/tagoh/2368535-ektype- baloo-2-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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 44496 bytes in 36 files. [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]: 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]: 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: ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc43.noarch.rpm ektype-baloo-2-fonts-all-1.640-1.fc43.noarch.rpm ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.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/tmp3b9s4sdu')] checks: 32, packages: 3 ektype-baloo-2-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('Bangla', '%description -l en_US Bangla -> Bangle, Bang la, Bang-la') ektype-baloo-2-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('latin', '%description -l en_US latin -> Latin, lain, satin') ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Bangla', '%description -l en_US Bangla -> Bangle, Bang la, Bang-la') ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('latin', '%description -l en_US latin -> Latin, lain, satin') ektype-baloo-2-fonts.spec:145: W: setup-not-quiet ektype-baloo-2-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.0 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 ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Bangla', '%description -l en_US Bangla -> Bangle, Bang la, Bang-la') ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('latin', '%description -l en_US latin -> Latin, lain, satin') ektype-baloo-2-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/EkType/Baloo2/archive/1.640/Baloo2-1.640.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8cb7e0ddd4af8a56bc447e6d8d66954f27b99b8538f52004bab173924f86f15b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8cb7e0ddd4af8a56bc447e6d8d66954f27b99b8538f52004bab173924f86f15b Requires -------- ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem ektype-baloo-2-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ektype-baloo-2-fonts ektype-baloo-bhai-2-fonts ektype-baloo-bhaina-2-fonts ektype-baloo-chettan-2-fonts ektype-baloo-da-2-fonts ektype-baloo-paaji-2-fonts ektype-baloo-tamma-2-fonts ektype-baloo-tammudu-2-fonts ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts Provides -------- ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts: config(ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts) ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts font(baloothambi2) font(baloothambi2extrabold) font(baloothambi2medium) font(baloothambi2semibold) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.ektype-baloo-thambi-2-fonts.metainfo.xml) ektype-baloo-2-fonts-all: ektype-baloo-2-fonts-all Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2368535 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, fonts, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, R, Python, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ektype-baloo-2-fonts
Thanks for the review.
FEDORA-2025-99a80a1d50 (ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-99a80a1d50
FEDORA-2025-9e54335c43 (ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9e54335c43
FEDORA-2025-99a80a1d50 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-99a80a1d50 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-99a80a1d50 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9e54335c43 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9e54335c43 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9e54335c43 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9e54335c43 (ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-99a80a1d50 (ektype-baloo-2-fonts-1.640-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.