SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1928487 Description: The PT Sans family was developed as part of the “Public Types of Russian Federation” project. This project aims at enabling the peoples of Russia to read and write their native languages, using free/libre fonts. It is dedicated to the 300-year anniversary of the Russian civil type invented by Peter the Great from 1708 to 1710, and was realized with financial support from the Russian Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications. The fonts include support for all 54 title¹ languages of the Russian Federation as well as more common Western, Central European and Cyrillic blocks making them unique and a very important tool for modern digital communications. PT Sans is a grotesque font based on Russian type designs of the second part of the 20th century. However, it also includes very distinctive features of modern humanistic design, fulfilling present day aesthetic and functional requirements. It was designed by Alexandra Korolkova, Olga Umpeleva and Vladimir Yefimov and released by ParaType. ¹ A “title” language is named after an ethnic group. See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Paratype_PT_Sans_fonts
Probably the only existing font set with 100% cyrillic coverage (and people complain DejaVu & Liberation cyrillic are poor). (very good article in Russian about the font linked from its main page) => candidate for default install in F13 ? => CC-ing i18n
Thanks for the headsup - it looks pretty interesting.
Since koji garbage-collected http://nim.fedorapeople.org/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-1.fc13.src.rpm
First, one cosmetic nitpick: $ rpm -qivp SRPMS/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-1.fc12.src.rpm [snip] This package includes the four basic styles and two narrows styles for \ economic setting. Could you make the backslash go away? Also, you define the « archivename » macro at the beginning of the spec but never actually use it. Can you remove it? (or use it?) Now, to the actual review. +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/paratype-pt-sans-* paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: macro-in-%description %_font_pkg paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: invalid-license PTFL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. => license is listed in the Fedora good licenses, so those 3 warnings can safely be ignored => I just opened #564585 to request that it is accepted by rpmlint => the 2 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding can safely be ignored I'd say (license text probably written under Windows) => the 2 file-not-utf8 can be ignored as well (same as above) => the macro-in-%description can be ignored as the macro is properly expanded at SRPM-build time, even with --nodeps IMHO, it would be nice to run iconv and dos2unix to remove the warnings, but those are not really important. [+] 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 be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. => PTFL [+] 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. => First one is the one I got from the URL in the spec file, second one is from the SRPM. $ sha1sum PTSans.zip d812b275f2b13e59a69671785b53a4eb5805c561 PTSans.zip $ sha1sum SOURCES/PTSans.zip f72ab3c42157ef81f7398b641213851f77e2deec SOURCES/PTSans.zip [+] 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: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. => not applicable [+] 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 permissible 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 contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. => not applicable [+] 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 reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. This package is not approved as the source archives don't match.
(In reply to comment #5) > First, one cosmetic nitpick: > $ rpm -qivp SRPMS/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-1.fc12.src.rpm > [snip] > This package includes the four basic styles and two narrows styles for \ > economic setting. > > Could you make the backslash go away? Stupid mistake, sorry about it, fixed > +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing > > MUST Items: > [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/paratype-pt-sans-* > paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL rpmlint is not up-to-date, PTFL is on the official Fedora license list http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Approved_font_licenses > paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font > License_eng.txt > paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font > License_eng.txt Missed it with all the stupid spellchecking warnings, fixed (sorry about it, I'm usually better than that) > paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: macro-in-%description %_font_pkg This is a bug in rpmlint & rpmbuild > [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. > => First one is the one I got from the URL in the spec file, second one is > from the SRPM. > $ sha1sum PTSans.zip > d812b275f2b13e59a69671785b53a4eb5805c561 PTSans.zip > $ sha1sum SOURCES/PTSans.zip > f72ab3c42157ef81f7398b641213851f77e2deec SOURCES/PTSans.zip Upstream probably did the usual in-place archive update (very common for fonts), I'll use the new version. > This package is not approved as the source archives don't match. Fixed http://nim.fedorapeople.org/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc13.src.rpm
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ sha1sum PTSans.zip d812b275f2b13e59a69671785b53a4eb5805c561 PTSans.zip I diffed the new spec file with the previous one, no changes but what was asked here. This package is now APPROVED.
Thanks a lot for the review! (esp. since I had missed a few problems) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: paratype-pt-sans-fonts Short Description: A pan-Cyrillic typeface Owners: nim Branches: devel, F11, F12 InitialCC: fonts-sig
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc12
paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc13
paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc11
paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.