[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng --- Also as usual %files section should be placed after %post/%preun, you'd better change the order. But it's not a MUST. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Christopher Meng --- PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #17 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #16) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #14) > > Thank you for the review. > > > > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #13) > > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts, > > This directory should be owned by fontpackages if the deps have been > properly declared Yes. R:fontpackages-filesystem was attached to the wrong subpackage and is now fixed (in unifont-6.3.20131221-2 above). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #16 from Nicolas Mailhot --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #14) > Thank you for the review. > > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #13) > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts, This directory should be owned by fontpackages if the deps have been properly declared -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- I also filed https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?41020. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Thank you for the review. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #13) > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts, > /usr/share/doc/unifont Fixed both. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed > > ---> Caused by font_pkg, may request a bug report later if you can. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047031 > Rpmlint > --- > Checking: unifont-6.3.20131221-1.fc21.i686.rpm > unifont-fonts-6.3.20131221-1.fc21.noarch.rpm > unifont-6.3.20131221-1.fc21.src.rpm > unifont.i686: W: name-repeated-in-summary C unifont > unifont-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> > glyph, glyph s > unifont.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C unifont > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > unifont.i686: W: name-repeated-in-summary C unifont > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' I changed the summaries and descriptions to be more verbose. Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131221-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462
--- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
later)". Detailed output of licensecheck:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unigencircles.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unigenwidth.c
GPL (v2 or later)
-
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unibdf2hex.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unibmp2hex.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unicoverage.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unidup.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unifontpic.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unihex2bmp.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unihexgen.c
GPL (v3 or later)
-
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unipagecount.c
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts,
/usr/share/doc/unifont
---> First one aybe a filesystem bug? Second one is an issue.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
---> Caused by font_pkg, may request a bug report later if you can.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in unifont
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/unifont/unifont-6.3.20131221/unifont
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- v4: update version, remove #' Upstream now has info files, so they are installed too. Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131221-1.fc20.src.rpm > BTW your SRPM causes crashes of mock everytime, I have no idea now... Works for me :) Both fedora-20-i386, -x86_64, fedora-rawhide-i386, -86_64. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- Hmm... Please update this package to the latest version. BTW your SRPM causes crashes of mock everytime, I have no idea now... Remove string "#'" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- Fine, I will review it later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- fedora-review issues are fixed in fedora-review-0.5.1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- OK, so fedora-review still doesn't work... because repoquery doesn't work. % repoquery -l filesystem failure: repodata/19cc80190af9badcf16e981479891dc2dc96e5f7d8316e9413c71d2075c1bcd9-filelists.sqlite.bz2 from fedora: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. http://download-i2.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/20/x86_64/os/repodata/19cc80190af9badcf16e981479891dc2dc96e5f7d8316e9413c71d2075c1bcd9-filelists.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found http://mirrors.nebo.edu/public/fedora/linux/development/20/x86_64/os/repodata/19cc80190af9badcf16e981479891dc2dc96e5f7d8316e9413c71d2075c1bcd9-filelists.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found ... But fedora-review works fine on F19. Tarred directory from fedora review is at http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/1036462-unifont.tar.xz if you don't have F19 at hand. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > DEBUG: Exception down the road... https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/233 But you're right, the -debuginfo package was borked. v3: do not strip binaries during installation Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131020-4.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) --- I am not sure why fonts-b...@lists.fedoraproject.org got removed from cc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org | --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng --- There might have some errors in the spec which caused my fedora-review failed to review: DEBUG: Running: rpm -ql --dump -p /home/rpmaker/Desktop/unifont/results/unifont-6.3.20131020-3.fc21.i686.rpm DEBUG: Running: rpm -ql --dump -p /home/rpmaker/Desktop/unifont/results/unifont-fonts-6.3.20131020-3.fc21.noarch.rpm DEBUG: Running: rpm -ql --dump -p /home/rpmaker/Desktop/unifont/results/unifont-debuginfo-6.3.20131020-3.fc21.i686.rpm DEBUG: Exception down the road... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 215, in run self._do_run(outfile) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 205, in _do_run self._do_report(outfile) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 90, in _do_report self._run_checks(self.bug.spec_file, self.bug.srpm_file, outfile) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 109, in _run_checks writedown=not Settings.no_report) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 389, in run_checks run_check(name) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 366, in run_check check.run() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic_build.py", line 192, in run listfiles() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic_build.py", line 168, in listfiles dirs, files = deps.listpaths(path) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/deps.py", line 183, in listpaths path, mode = line.rsplit(None, 10)[0:5:4] ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- v3: insert optflags/ldflags Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131020-3.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- No optflags/ldflags inserted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Chinese here :) Swap with bug 1033037 if you want, last time I checked unifont it was still in 2008 version, happy to see the resurrection. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- v2: add missing BuildRequires Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131020-2.fc20.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6246026 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Blocks||1000885 (DESIGN-SW) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000885 [Bug 1000885] Tracker: Review Requests for Design related packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
