[Bug 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Pete Travis changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1010741 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010741 [Bug 1010741] Review Request: python-nikola - Static website and blog generator -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Petr Vobornik changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pvobo...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Petr Vobornik --- Some comments (not a proper review): 1. the license is probably not MIT. Bootstrap 3 is under MIT, but Bootstrap has special permission from Glyphicons author to include it, see http://glyphicons.com/license/ Not sure if this is a show-stopper. 2. the only allowed font formats in Fedora are ttf and otf 3. use ttembed tool to change TTF format's embeddable permission to 'installable', otherwise it won't be usable in Internet Explorer (when used on web) 4. font config file is missing 5. I think better source would be https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/archive/v3.0.3.tar.gz For #2 and #3 check this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-November/192518.html -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 --- Comment #2 from Pete Travis --- The licensing statement seems clear to me, but I will ask upstream to make sure they are happy with the situation. I'll work on 2,3,4. On the source, I don't want to pull in the whole bootstrap tarball, but it would probably better to pull in based on commit hash instead of tag. Thanks for helping things along, Petr. -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 --- Comment #3 from Pete Travis --- Spec URL: http://immanetize.fedorapeople.org/glyphicons-halflings-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://immanetize.fedorapeople.org/glyphicons-halflings-fonts-3.1.0-20140211git728067b.1.src.rpm Description: GLYPHICONS is a library of precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols, created with an emphasis on simplicity and easy orientation. -- No response from author. Remains included in Bootstrap, licensed (MIT) the same as Bootstrap per the author. -- Only packaging the TTF per #1. I couldn't find references for this restriction, and I'm wondering if at least the SVG file can be included. -- Using git snapshots for the release. Glyphicons might pace differently from Bootstrap, and this will help reflect that. -- I looked over fontconfig more thoroughly, and I'm not sure it is well suited for this font package. I don't know a generic font that could substitute for these glyphs, or where they could substitute for another font. These are unique ideograms, as far as I can tell. -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Eric Christensen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||spa...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|spa...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805
Eric Christensen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Eric Christensen ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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.
[-]: 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 is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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:
[!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
fonts:
[!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to
make a comprehensive font review.
See: url: und
[Bug 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 --- Comment #5 from Eric Christensen --- Approved the review. All mandatory items pass although there are some tests that are highly recommended for fonts (see EXTRA items at bottom of the review). It would be a good idea to remedy those issues before pushing to the repos. -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Pete Travis changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Pete Travis --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: glyphicons-halflings-fonts Short Description: Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols Owners: immanetize Branches: f19 f20 -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- glyphicons-halflings-fonts-3.1.0-2.20140211git728067b.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glyphicons-halflings-fonts-3.1.0-2.20140211git728067b.fc20 -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Fedora fonts special interest group changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org | Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- glyphicons-halflings-fonts-3.1.0-2.20140211git728067b.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||glyphicons-halflings-fonts- ||3.1.0-2.20140211git728067b. ||fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-03-30 02:04:07 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- glyphicons-halflings-fonts-3.1.0-2.20140211git728067b.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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
