Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-fontutils.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-fontutils-svn61207-2.fc44.src.rpm Description: Graphics and font utilities Programs for conversion between font formats, testing fonts, virtual fonts, .gf and .pk manipulation, mft, fontinst, etc. Manipulating OpenType, TrueType, Type 1,and for manipulation of PostScript and other image formats. Fedora Account System Username: spot This package is a split out version of what used to be all mashed together in the "texlive" package. It is split out by "collection", which is an upstream TeXLive concept. These packages are difficult to test in isolation, but they are all available in this copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/texlive-2025 All of the components within this package are noarch, they do not need to be built, and they very rarely need to be patched. Accordingly, this package does not unpack all of the component files during %prep (this is the same behavior as current "texlive"), because it would require a large amount of files to be unnecessarily written to disk twice, slowing down the package build process by 2x. The package you're looking at might seem small, but some of these collections are pretty big. I would strongly prefer to have this package continue to work in that way, but if you feel strongly, you can plead your case here. :)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9987235 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2427956-texlive-collection-fontutils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09987235-texlive-collection-fontutils/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.
> texlive-dvipsconfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/dvips/dvipsconfig/addpsctrl 644 /bin/bash It would be great if you either make this 755 or remove the #!/* from the first line. I will not block review on this.
License: LPPL-1.3c and %license gpl2.txt does not match. Can you fix this please?
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #3) > License: LPPL-1.3c > > and > > %license gpl2.txt > > does not match. Can you fix this please? So, technically, it does. The collection itself (basically just the collection metadata, see SOURCE0) is LPPL-1.3c. The texlive-dvipsconfig subpackage is "GPL-2.0-or-later" and marked accordingly, and that's why %license gpl2.txt shows up there.
New SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-fontutils-svn61207-3.fc44.src.rpm New SPEC URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-fontutils.spec Fixes descriptions.
Created attachment 2121949 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9987235 to 10001884
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10001884 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2427956-texlive-collection-fontutils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10001884-texlive-collection-fontutils/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.
> So, technically, it does. The collection itself (basically just the collection metadata, see SOURCE0) is LPPL-1.3c. The texlive-dvipsconfig subpackage is "GPL-2.0-or-later" and marked accordingly, and that's why %license gpl2.txt shows up there. Aha. Ok, then. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in texlive- dvipsconfig [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. It does. But the whole TeXlive is kindof exception. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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: No rpmlint messages. APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/texlive-collection-fontutils