Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-core.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-core-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: This package provides more improved free Korean Truetype fonts. Dennis Jang
rpmlint says: un-fonts-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-080608-1 1.0-1.fc9 How about using the latest released 1.0.2-080608 tarball? (Also since you note it in the changelog.:) I think the version can be just 1.0.2 and then the datestamp can go into the release field following http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines. Probably %define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name} %define archivename un-fonts Name: un-fonts-core would be ok for this package. un-fonts-core.src: W: invalid-license GPL v2 The license url http://korea.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.ko.html embedded in the ttf fonts is broken. Could you please contact upstream to clarify their intention on the GPL version. It would be better if the fonts files just stated the GPL version (eg "version 2 or later") than referring to a url which might change or disappear. Anyway currently the License tag should be GPLv2+ or maybe GPLv2. (There seems to be a translation at http://korea.gnu.org/documents/copyleft/gpl.ko.html but again Fedora, like the FSF, would not recognise the unofficial translation. So it does not really help.) You don't use xorg-x11-font-utils or ttmkfdir so those buildrequires can be dropped. It would be good to have a bit more information in the description. There can also be summary and description in Korean added.
Summary: Un series Korean TrueType fonts Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-core.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-core-1.0.2.080608-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a set of Korean TrueType fonts. Un-fonts is comes from the HLaTeX as type1 fonts in 1998 by Koaunghi Un It converted to TrueType with the FontForge(PfaEdit) by Won-kyu Park in 2003. This package has only the most common font families. Install un-fonts-extra for additional fonts. #1 Rebuild and repackaging for rpmlint #2 Changed package name to Un series Korean TrueType fonts #3 Summary and description of the changes, added to Korean #4 Added %define archiveversion 080608, because 080608 is snapshot version #5 I have a problem in korean spacing words for rpmlint. I don't fix it #6 fixed License: GPLv2+ -- Problem #5 # rpmlint -i un-fonts-core.spec un-fonts-core.spec:25: W: non-break-space line 25 The spec file contains a non-break space, which looks like a regular space in some editors but can lead to obscure errors. It should be replaced by a regular space. un-fonts-core.spec:27: W: non-break-space line 27 The spec file contains a non-break space, which looks like a regular space in some editors but can lead to obscure errors. It should be replaced by a regular space. un-fonts-core.spec:28: W: non-break-space line 28 The spec file contains a non-break space, which looks like a regular space in some editors but can lead to obscure errors. It should be replaced by a regular space. 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Thanks, Dennis for the clear update. > #1 Rebuild and repackaging for rpmlint > #2 Changed package name to Un series Korean TrueType fonts > #3 Summary and description of the changes, added to Korean Thanks > #4 Added %define archiveversion 080608, because 080608 is snapshot version OK - I am still a little unclear on the meaning of the snapshot date in relation to the version 1.0.2. Does it mean prerelease or postrelease or is it just a label? In any case I don't think it should go into the version field but the release: > #5 I have a problem in korean spacing words for rpmlint. I don't fix it Okay - maybe we should file a bug for rpmlint for it.
BTW just a note that if upstream released the fontforge .sfd files it would be better to build those than shipping the .ttf files but that is not blocker.
(In reply to comment #2) > #6 fixed License: GPLv2+ Did you check upstream about the GPL version and ask if they will update the license text in the fonts themselves?
Created attachment 310643 [details] un-fonts-core.spec-1.patch some suggested changes
Also please update the changelog in the spec file next time you update.
One more thing: since the fonts are big and probably most non-Korean users won't need all of them installed I would like to subpackage the less used fonts so that we can install just main ones by default and the rest for Korean users. Default font for Korean should be Batang?
> Default font for Korean should be Batang? I tested now - well I guess the default Un Dotum should be ok?
(In reply to comment #9) > > Default font for Korean should be Batang? > I tested now - well I guess the default Un Dotum should be ok? Debin and ubuntu at default korean font is Un Dotum ^^
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > #6 fixed License: GPLv2+ > Did you check upstream about the GPL version and ask if they will update the license > text in the fonts themselves? I asked them to check again. They gave answers to a GPLv2
> I asked them to check again. They gave answers to a GPLv2 Thanks. So not GPLv2+ (ie "version 2 or later")?
(In reply to comment #3) > > #4 Added %define archiveversion 080608, because 080608 is snapshot version > OK - I am still a little unclear on the meaning of the snapshot date in relation to > the version 1.0.2. Does it mean prerelease or postrelease or is it just a label? > In any case I don't think it should go into the version field but the release: this version is prerelease and 1.0 is stable release how about you packaging version is 1.0 or 1.0.2-prerelease? I think a 1.0.2-stable release will take a long time
Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-core.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-core-1.0.2-2.080608.fc9.src.rpm diff URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-core.spec-2.patch - refined .spec literal, license, versioning contents. #1 Changes to licenes GPLv2+ to GPLv2. #2 Changes to versioning 1.0.2.080608-2 to 1.0.2-2.080608
(In reply to comment #9) > > Default font for Korean should be Batang? > > I tested now - well I guess the default Un Dotum should be ok? Default font is UnDotum in fontconfig-2.6.0-2.fc10< http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=51207 >. See Also : http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13569 : Korean font in the default config - replacing baekmuk with un
(In reply to comment #12) > Thanks. So not GPLv2+ (ie "version 2 or later")? About the license please see also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UN_fonts#Caveats
(In reply to comment #13) > this version is prerelease and 1.0 is stable release > how about you packaging version is 1.0 or 1.0.2-prerelease? > > I think a 1.0.2-stable release will take a long time Oh I see. So I had misunderstood the upstream versioning intention. Then I am sorry but better we revert to 1.0 unless there are strong reasons for shipping a snapshot.
Created attachment 311012 [details] un-fonts-core.spec-3.patch simple patch just to revert to the stable release
(In reply to comment #16) > About the license please see also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UN_fonts#Caveats Yes, please update the wiki page (change its status) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UN_fonts and follow our fonts packaging instructions http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts_packaging
(In reply to comment #17) > Then I am sorry but better we revert to 1.0 unless there are > strong reasons for shipping a snapshot. There are 4 more MiBs of content with 4 years of work since 1.0. Is that strong enough? However the package should use pre-release conventions http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Summary: Un Core families Korean TrueType fonts Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/1.0/un-core-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/1.0/un-core-fonts-1.0-3.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a set of Korean TrueType fonts. Un-fonts come from the HLaTeX type1 fonts made by Koaunghi Un in 1998. They were converted to TrueType with FontForge(PfaEdit) by Won-kyu Park in 2003. Core families (9 fonts) * UnBatang, UnBatangBold: serif * UnDotum, UnDotumBold: sans-serif * UnGraphic, UnGraphicBold: sans-serif style * UnPilgi, UnPilgiBold: script * UnGungseo: cursive, brush-stroke Install un-extra-fonts for additional fonts. and 1.0.2-pre repackaging http://get9.net/rpm/1.0.2-080608/un-core-fonts-1.0.2-0.3.080608.fc9.src.rpm http://get9.net/rpm/1.0.2-080608/un-core-fonts.spec
(In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #13) > > this version is prerelease and 1.0 is stable release > > how about you packaging version is 1.0 or 1.0.2-prerelease? > > > > I think a 1.0.2-stable release will take a long time > Oh I see. So I had misunderstood the upstream versioning intention. > Then I am sorry but better we revert to 1.0 unless there are > strong reasons for shipping a snapshot. revert to the 1.0 stable release
Stable release 1.0-4 Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0/un-core-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0/un-core-fonts-1.0-4.fc9.src.rpm Diff URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0/un-core-fonts-1.0.spec-4.patch pre-release 1.0.2-0.4.080608 Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0.2-080608/un-core-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0.2-080608/un-core-fonts-1.0.2- 0.4.080608.fc9.src.rpm Diff URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0.2-080608/un-core-fonts-1.0.2.spec-4.patch -Refined .spec literal
> There are 4 more MiBs of content with 4 years of work since 1.0. Is that strong enough? Ok, agreed let's go with the new pre-release if Dennis does not have any concerns. :) (Sorry to keep jumping back and forth with the version....) Personally I would rather keep the upstream name un-fonts-core. We do that with other fonts packages too. IMHO upstream naming should take precedence AFAP. Nicolas, how can we get consensus on this?
(In reply to comment #24) > Personally I would rather keep the upstream name un-fonts-core. > We do that with other fonts packages too. My preference would be un-core-fonts/un-extra-fonts to minimize confusion with subpackages. Multiple slightly different conventions are user-unfriendly. But I'll let you have the last call on this one.
Nicolas, ok I sent a mail to fedora-fonts-list proposing your idea of renaming fonts deviating from *-fonts. Sorry, Dennis, starting this discussion here, and thanks for your patience. So I agree let's proceed with un-core-fonts-1.0.2. :)
(In reply to comment #26) > Nicolas, ok I sent a mail to fedora-fonts-list proposing your idea of renaming > fonts deviating from > *-fonts. > Sorry, Dennis, starting this discussion here, and thanks for your patience. > So I agree let's proceed with un-core-fonts-1.0.2. :) thanks Jens ^^
So my last request I hope is to have subpackages for un-core-fonts. I would suggest: un-core-fonts-{batang,dinaru,dotum,graphic,gungseo,pilgi} and the base fonts can require all those for users that want to install all the families.
> [...] base fonts [...] Sorry I meant base package.
I talked to Nicolas on ##fonts and he persuaded me a base meta-package is a bad idea. (Maybe we need to think how to organize fonts better inside comps.)
I am going to sponsor Dennis, so removing needsponsor for this bug.
Created attachment 311926 [details] un-core-fonts.spec-5.patch Here is a patch which implements the subpackaging with a macro. I put in a couple of FIXME for the ko text in the macro - please have a look and fix them up as appropriate. :)
Created attachment 312229 [details] updated spec file Spec file - http://get9.net/rpm/5/un-fonts-core.spec this patch is a little modification, But main description disappear and short length of spec file but will untidy
Sorry for the slow response. Those two files are quite different. Which one are you intending for the review? :)
I am assuming attachment 312229 [details].
Here is my review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [=] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [=] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. 87edeb65586b85d4ce10c1fab4f1e1aa un-fonts-core-1.0.2-080608.tar.gz [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Please provide the final srpm package and I am happy to approve this package.
Just to clarify, these two points: > [=] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review. > [=] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. > > 87edeb65586b85d4ce10c1fab4f1e1aa un-fonts-core-1.0.2-080608.tar.gz are just referring to this: > Please provide the final srpm package and I am happy to approve this package. Thanks
Dennis communicated to me that he is happy with the .spec file in attachment 312229 [details]. I am sponsoring Dennis - thank you for the review! This package is APPROVED for inclusion in Fedora. Please go ahead and follow the process from step 7 on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join also explains the steps in more detail.
Dennis, ping :) Can you please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure so we can get this package added to Fedora soon.
(In reply to comment #39) > Dennis, ping :) Can you please follow > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure > so we can get this package added to Fedora soon. Jens, sorry for slow response ok I'll follow cvsadmin procdeure
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: un-core-fonts Short Description: Un Core families Korean TrueType fonts Owners: smallvil Branches: devel F-9 F-8 InitialCC: petersen,fonts-sig
cvs done.
Thanks, package has been built and is now in rawhide. :) Added to f10 comps and relnotes under i18n.
un-core-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-core-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc8
un-core-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-core-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc9
un-core-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
un-core-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.