spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/columntype-agbalumo-fonts.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/columntype-agbalumo-fonts-1.00-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Curvy, chunky, and compact. The Agbalumo display typeface has been designed to represent and capture the beauty of African languages. Primarily taking shape from the use of a brush pen, it's charming, playful, and cute look lends itself to a variety of commercial and cultural use cases. Agbalumo is a single weight multilingual font. The glyph set includes standard opentype features and an assortment of stylistic alternates. Agbalumo can be used for African languages that make use of the Latin script, the Ge'ez script, European languages, and Vietnamese. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9668244 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2402458-columntype-agbalumo-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09668244-columntype-agbalumo-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.
The review itself almost looks good as the following. One question is that if they are really a sans-serif font, because: 1) The font description in upstream says "The Agbalumo display typeface" 2) also "Primarily taking shape from the use of a brush pen" 1) may be more like "system-ui" font. and "cursive" makes sense for 2). See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/generic-family for example. 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 734 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. [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. 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: columntype-agbalumo-fonts-1.00-1.fc44.noarch.rpm columntype-agbalumo-fonts-1.00-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpr_8h_rll')] checks: 32, packages: 2 columntype-agbalumo-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('opentype', '%description -l en_US opentype -> open type, open-type, phenotype') columntype-agbalumo-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('opentype', '%description -l en_US opentype -> open type, open-type, phenotype') columntype-agbalumo-fonts.spec:15: W: non-break-space line 15, char 21 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 columntype-agbalumo-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('opentype', '%description -l en_US opentype -> open type, open-type, phenotype') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/SorkinType/Agbalumo//archive/261ad51ef2291821685c1bebf10cf0fb9f7e08f9/agbalumo-261ad51ef2291821685c1bebf10cf0fb9f7e08f9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a1be41ec803796916ec5f852b6bfe652725aff40f5cdde18956581d27c6e510b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a1be41ec803796916ec5f852b6bfe652725aff40f5cdde18956581d27c6e510b Requires -------- columntype-agbalumo-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(columntype-agbalumo-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- columntype-agbalumo-fonts: columntype-agbalumo-fonts config(columntype-agbalumo-fonts) font(agbalumo) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.columntype-agbalumo-fonts.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2402458 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, R, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH