Bug 561270 - Review Request: paktype-naqsh-fonts - Fonts for Arabic from PakType
Review Request: paktype-naqsh-fonts - Fonts for Arabic from PakType
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Parag AN(पराग)
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2010-02-03 03:43 EST by Pravin Satpute
Modified: 2010-02-07 23:55 EST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-02-07 23:55:27 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
panemade: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Pravin Satpute 2010-02-03 03:43:38 EST
SPEC URL : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/paktype-naqsh-fonts.spec


since upstream is releasing tehreer and naqsh fonts in differently and also maintaining different version for them sp better to split these packages
Comment 1 Pravin Satpute 2010-02-03 03:50:29 EST
will orphan paktype-fonts package after pushing this to cvs
Comment 2 Naveen Kumar 2010-02-03 07:32:14 EST
Here's an unofficial review, using the checklist from:


*  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.[1]

OUTPUT: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


*  MUST: The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines .


*  MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2]


*  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. [3]

GPLv2 with exceptions

*  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.[4]


*  MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]


*  MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]


*  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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the  Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.

OK. The md5sum of License.txt from upstream and bugzilla source was d32810f7d982d6bab2e36e4418c355a2
    The md5sum of PakType_Naqsh.ttf from upstream and bugzilla source was 45bfc1b8773edbfe4993014bd8d83fbd

*  MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]

OK.   Koji build successfull, Build ID:1960569 [http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1960569]
                              Build ID:1960571 [http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1960571]

*  MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

OK.   Not Applicable as noarch.

*   MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.


*  MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

OK:   No gettext in BuildRequires

*  MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]

OK.   No shared library involved

*  MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]

OK.  Not applicable 

*  MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12]

OK.   Not to be relocated

*  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. [13]


*  MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [14]

OK.   %files section missing...

*  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. [15]

OK.   No %files section and hence no %defattr

*  MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]


*  MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]


*  MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]


*  MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]

OK. No %doc section

*  MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [19]


*  MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]


*  MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]


*  MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22]


*  MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [20]


*  MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}  [23]


*  MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21]

OK. Does not contain any .la libtool archives.

*  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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [24] 


*  MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25]


* MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]


*  MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]


(SHOULD Section)

*  SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [28]


*  SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [29]

NO. Not available.

*  SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]

NO. I did that on Koji. Build ID:1960569 [http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1960569]
                        Build ID:1960571 [http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1960571]

*  SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [31]

NA. It's a noarch

*  SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

NO I do not understand Arbic but looks ok to me...

*  SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32]


*  SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [23]


*  SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22]


*  SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [33]


*  SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]

Comment 3 Pravin Satpute 2010-02-05 05:27:49 EST
small update as per review #561271

updated spec file: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/paktype-naqsh-fonts.spec

updated srpm link: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/paktype-naqsh-fonts-3.0-1.fc12.src.rpm


Note: in updates upstream somehow removed fonts exception from license file (
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/paktype/PakType%20Naqsh/3.0/License_Naqsh_3_0.txt ) , I had a communication with upstream on same and they have changed it in
trunk, so i am using License file from trunk for now.
Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2010-02-05 05:33:34 EST
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i686).
koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1964376
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream url (sha1sum)
a47153b789fb57be65a80907c9501324349c65f1  PakType_Naqsh.ttf
7cf803158df76a108a5a4f72495bbb5368350c71  License.txt
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ Follows fonts packaging guidelines also.

Comment 5 Pravin Satpute 2010-02-05 05:45:12 EST
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: paktype-naqsh-fonts
Short Description: Fonts for Arabic from PakType
Owners: pravins
InitialCC: fonts-sig
Comment 6 Pravin Satpute 2010-02-05 05:51:17 EST
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: paktype-naqsh-fonts
Short Description: Fonts for Arabic from PakType
Owners: pravins
InitialCC: fonts-sig, i18n-team
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2010-02-07 16:26:13 EST
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Comment 8 Pravin Satpute 2010-02-07 23:55:27 EST
built for devel

thanks parag and kevin

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.