Spec URL: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/google-lato-fonts/google-lato-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/google-lato-fonts/google-lato-fonts-1.010-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Lato is a sanserif typeface family designed in the Summer 2010 by Warsaw-based designer Łukasz Dziedzic ("Lato" means "Summer" in Polish). In December 2010 the Lato family was published under the open-source Open Font License by his foundry tyPoland, with support from Google. rpmlint issues: $ rpmlint google-lato-fonts-1.010-1.fc14.src.rpm google-lato-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tyPoland -> typo land, typo-land, typology google-lato-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US letterforms -> letter forms, letter forms, letterbombs google-lato-fonts.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %{name} google-lato-fonts.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %{version} google-lato-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: google-lato-fonts-1.010.zip All these warnings are benign, even the last one: there is no direct URL to retrieve the font archive. $ rpmlint google-lato-fonts-1.010-1.fc14.noarch.rpm google-lato-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tyPoland -> typo land, typo-land, typology google-lato-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US letterforms -> letter forms, letter-forms, letterbombs google-lato-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation Notes: Although the font designer has its own foundry (http://www.typoland.com/), he apparently choosed to distribute its work through the Google Font Directory. So I considered Google to be the "foundry" assigned to this package.
I'll take it
I've just updated the fonts: SPEC: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/google-lato-fonts/google-lato-fonts.spec SRPM: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/google-lato-fonts/google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc14.src.rpm The fonts are now taken from are in the Google Font Directory hg repo.
[OK] rpmlint must be run on every package. Errors are spelling-errors and invalid Source0, all can be ignored here [OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It follows http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Naming [OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. It respects the information provided on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template [OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License is OFL [OK] 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. [OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [N/A] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. source from the src.rpm: 119833a4e1c682096c8effb6da18e2ef I can regenerate this source tarball, but the script made to retrieve them is clean [OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on F14-x86_64 [N/A] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] 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. [N/A] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [N/A] 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. [N/A] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [N/A] 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. [OK] 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. This is taken care of by the macro [OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. This is taken care of by the macro [OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. This is taken care of by the macro [OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [N/A[ Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [OK] 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. [N/A] Header files must be in a -devel package. [N/A] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N/A] 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. [N/A] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. [N/A] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [N/A] 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. [OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. So this package is APPROVED.
Thanks for this review Pierre-Yves :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: google-lato-fonts Short Description: A sanserif typeface family Owners: melmorabity Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: fonts-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc14
google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc13
google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 google-lato-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc14
google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
google-lato-fonts-1.011-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.