Spec URL: http://hisdeedsaredust.com/pkg/ubuntutitle-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://hisdeedsaredust.com/pkg/ubuntutitle-fonts-002.000-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Ubuntu-title is a font designed by Andrew Fitzsimon commissioned by Canonical, the sponsor of Ubuntu, to create the lettering of the Ubuntu logo. Ubuntu-title currently provides the following Unicode coverage: Basic Latin: 93/128 (72.66%) Latin-1 Supplement: 2/128 (1.56%) This is my first attempt at packaging.
Here's an unofficial review, using the checklist as reference from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/Review_Template + source files match upstream: 18b223615ba2e3444b87360bba80f0cefdcda51b8cf50354e3d3a052b791370c :ubuntu-title-002.000.tar.gz from source and upstream. +package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. ? (+/-) Copying.txt specifies "OFL 1.1 and GPL 2 with exceptions" where as specfile mentions "OFL or GPLv2 with exceptions". + licenses are open source-compatible: license text included in package. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. - Koji scratch build failed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1999283 + package installs properly. + rpmlint is silent. (rpmlint version 0.91) + final provides and requires are sane: rpm -qp --provides output: config(ubuntutitle-fonts) = 002.000-1.fc12 font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(ubuntu-title) ubuntutitle-fonts = 002.000-1.fc12 rpm -qp --requires output: /bin/sh /bin/sh config(ubuntutitle-fonts) = 002.000-1.fc12 fontpackages-filesystem rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no %files section + file permissions are appropriate. + scriptlets sane + content (font) + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + no desktop files
Many thanks, Naveen. To take the points in order: ? (+/-) Copying.txt specifies "OFL 1.1 and GPL 2 with exceptions" where as specfile mentions "OFL or GPLv2 with exceptions". I forgot to question this one. OFL v1.1 isn't on the list of valid licences, so I omitted the version when I guess I should have asked upstream about this. - Koji scratch build failed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1999283 Hmm, it builds in mock. I don't know how Koji works, but I notice you provided a spec instead of the src.rpm. Is that correct? Thank you. I'll go and ask about that licence.
(In reply to comment #2) > I forgot to question this one. OFL v1.1 isn't on the list of valid licences, so > I omitted the version when I guess I should have asked upstream about this. From the Fedora Licensing page, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main, it appears that OFL v1.1 has the short name "OFL", so the spec is correct. If you're asking about the "OFL and GPL" versus "OFL or GPL", then Packaging:LicensingGuidelines says that this one is "or", as the font is dual licensed.
(In reply to comment #2) > - Koji scratch build failed: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1999283 > > Hmm, it builds in mock. I don't know how Koji works, but I notice you provided > a spec instead of the src.rpm. Is that correct? > > Thank you. I'll go and ask about that licence. OOPS! extremely sorry! Yes it does build in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2004217
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > I forgot to question this one. OFL v1.1 isn't on the list of valid licences, so > > I omitted the version when I guess I should have asked upstream about this. > > From the Fedora Licensing page, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main, > it appears that OFL v1.1 has the short name "OFL", so the spec is correct. > > If you're asking about the "OFL and GPL" versus "OFL or GPL", then > Packaging:LicensingGuidelines says that this one is "or", as the font is dual > licensed. Yep, Thanks for the clarification. I think that should make it sane.
Thanks both of you for the work, sorry I was busy elsewhere, here is a review 1. (blocking) as per fonts packaging guidelines the organisation releasing the fonts should be used to prefix the package name, so the package name should be ubuntu-title-fonts (package names are a PITA to change after import, try to get them right from the start) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Naming 2. It's not a good idea to include this kind of coverage info in the summary, it will (hopefully) change over time and you want the summary to stay invariant (esp. if we finally manage to get them translated) If you want to add coverage hints be very general "partial basic latin" and not so specific (note that "partial basic latin" is already borderline and specific) The rest if fine, just fix this and I'll approve the package
Created attachment 395486 [details] repo-font-audit messages to relay upstream
Thank you for the review. Spec URL: http://hisdeedsaredust.com/pkg/ubuntu-title-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://hisdeedsaredust.com/pkg/ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc12.src.rpm Changes: 1. Changed package name to ubuntu-title-fonts 2. Coverage information removed from description rpmlint has now been updated and it complains about the spelling of the font creator's name; other than that it's clean. Builds in mock. repo-font-audit runs fontlint and its complaints are already acknowledged by upstream in the BUGS.txt file which is in the distribution.
Ping Nicholas; is there something more I need to do?
This one is nice and clean. I'm very sorry for the delay, this is no good at all on my part, life didn't leave me much free time this year. It has been very nice to see people like you step up and keep the SIG alive while I was unavailable
Anyway, ਔਔਔ APPROVED ਔਔਔ You can now continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a I hope the process was pleasant, and that it will inspire you to package a other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our organisation or documentation on the fonts mailing list. Thank you for another contribution to our font package pool. ⇒ REASSIGNING, this package is all yours now
Naveen, thank you for the initial review. Nicolas, thank you for the review, and sponsorship. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ubuntu-title-fonts Short Description: decorative font of Ubuntu logo Owners: frixxon Branches: f13 f14 el6 InitialCC: fonts-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc13
ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc14
ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ubuntu-title-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc13
ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ubuntu-title-fonts-002.000-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.