Spec URL: http://nim.fedorapeople.org/andika-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://nim.fedorapeople.org/andika-fonts-1.0-1.fc10.nim.src.rpm Description: Andika is a sans serif, Unicode-compliant font designed especially for literacy use, taking into account the needs of beginning readers. The focus is on clear, easy-to-perceive letterforms that will not be readily confused with one another. A sans serif font is preferred by some literacy personnel for teaching people to read. Its forms are simpler and less cluttered than those of most serif fonts. For years, literacy workers have had to make do with fonts that were not really suitable for beginning readers and writers. In some cases, literacy specialists have had to tediously assemble letters from a variety of fonts in order to get all of the characters they need for their particular language project, resulting in confusing and unattractive publications. Andika addresses those issues. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIL_Andika_fonts
Informal package review: ======================== -Summary: Andika SIL fonts +Summary: Andika is a sans serif font designed for literacy use and for beginning readers * No need to be so brief, ~80 chars are usually ok for rpmlint. -* Tue Jun 24 2008 <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> -- 1.0-1 -Ṑ Initial packaging +* Tue Jun 24 2008 <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> - 1.0-1 +- Initial packaging + * Just indenting and ascii-sation. -- Seems good to me.
(In reply to comment #1) > Informal package review: > ======================== > -Summary: Andika SIL fonts > +Summary: Andika is a sans serif font designed for literacy use and for > beginning readers > > * No need to be so brief, ~80 chars are usually ok for rpmlint. Actually rpmlint has a 79 column limit and your proposal is 80 Though I suppose “A SIL sans serif font designed for literacy use and for beginning readers” would be fine > -* Tue Jun 24 2008 <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> > -- 1.0-1 > -Ṑ Initial packaging > +* Tue Jun 24 2008 <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> - 1.0-1 the rpm maintainers will tell you anything after the mail is garbage (but it's a common mistake, even if the guidelines authorize both) > +- Initial packaging You'll take unicode out of my dead hands :) changelog is and always been UTF-8 > Seems good to me. Thanks for the review, care to do an official one?
I do. (But now focusing on being sponsored and having awesome package into the distribution.)
How about: Summary: A font for literacy and beginning readers
Why not, care to take the review?
I will keep in my radar - maybe I can get to it next week - unfortunately I don't have time right now.
So I guess this should be named sil-andika-fonts if we are going to move to the new naming conventations?
yes it would. I hesitated going directly to sil-andika-fonts, but I'd rather change every font package in one go than have packages with different conventions in the same repo.
(In reply to comment #3) > I do. (But now focusing on being sponsored and having awesome package into the > distribution.) It seems a nice fairy sponsored you. Care to do an official review now? :)
Will do official review.
MUST Items: PASS - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. PASS - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . PASS - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format PASS - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . PASS - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . PASS - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. PASS - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) ... PASS - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. PASS - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read PASS - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - did sha1sum; sources matches NA - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. NA - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, NA - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires NA - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. NA - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files NA - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state PASS - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. PASS - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. PASS - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with PASS - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} PASS - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the PASS - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. NA - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. PASS - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. NA - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files NA - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix NA - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require NA - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. NA - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file PASS - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. PASS - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} PASS - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - UTF8 + ASCII (sub-set of UTF*) SHOULD Items: NA - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) NA - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain NA - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - no deps - no mock PASS - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. PASS - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. - took a look via gnome-font-viewer PASS - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. NA - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. NA - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) NA - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, Overall: PASS
Many thanks. I you don't have anything else to add please set the fedora-review flag to "+" now, so the PASS is official ⇓⇓⇓⇓
Sure. Done.
Michal Nowak: congratulation on your first package and first official review. Hope you'll do many more of them in the future. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: andika-fonts Short Description: A font for literacy and beginning readers Owners: nim Branches: devel only InitialCC: fonts-sig Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
All done. Thanks to everyone involved