[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840
Bug 1458840 depends on bug 1494563, which changed state.

Bug 1494563 Summary: [Tracking BZ] Update specfiles to use 'urw-base35-fonts' 
instead of 'urw-fonts'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494563

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE




-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2
   ||.fc28,
   ||urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2
   ||.fc27



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-10-04 10:20:53



--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0de4a9558d

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|zdoh...@redhat.com  |dkas...@redhat.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0de4a9558d

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-612c622a20

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fbf9678db3

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a746305577

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-612c622a20

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fbf9678db3

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
urw-base35-fonts-20170801-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a746305577

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1494563




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494563
[Bug 1494563] [Tracking BZ] Update specfiles to use 'urw-base35-fonts'
instead of 'urw-fonts'
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840
Bug 1458840 depends on bug 1466254, which changed state.

Bug 1466254 Summary: 'xset fp rehash' does not work without X server running
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466254

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1376476




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376476
[Bug 1376476] urw-fonts: new release(20160926) available
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #30 from Ralph Bean  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/urw-base35-fonts

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #29 from Ralph Bean  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/urw-base35-fonts

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+
   |needinfo?(zdoh...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #28 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Issues are resolved, except for several mentioned before (which are reported on
other components). Giving FEDORA-REVIEW+

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "AGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* AGPL (v3)", "Unknown or
 generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/urw-base35-fonts/review-
 urw-base35-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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.
[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 is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
 Note: %define requiring justification: %define fontfamily_subpkg(cf:)
 # This auxiliary macro will use value of '-f' option if 

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1466254




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466254
[Bug 1466254] 'xset fp rehash' does not work without X server running
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(dkas...@redhat.co |needinfo?(zdoh...@redhat.co
   |m)  |m)



--- Comment #27 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
The latest version:
>> https://dkaspar.fedorapeople.org/share/reviews/urw-base35-fonts/v4/

 * Added requirement for 'fontpackages-filesystem', to deal with ownership of
/usr/share/fonts (this package, however, should be installed on Fedora by
default)
 * Split the %description line to avoid warnings about description being longer
than 80 characters.

From version 3:
 * 'font.dir' and 'font.scale' files have been marked as %ghost files
 * the upgrading process has been fixed (proper Obsoletes/Provides/Conflicts)

Known issues:
 * error message during installation if the user does not have X11 running:
 > xset:  unable to open display ""

 ... This has been already reported in BZ #1466254. I expect to reroute the
output of that command into /dev/null before F27 Beta, if this is not fixed in
X11 by then.

 * 2 errors regarding 'unknown Type 1 Weight' of the fonts. This is produced by
the 'mkfontscale' command, and this is a bug in the fonts source itself.

 ... I have already reported this to both upstream and URW++, and I'm waiting
for their reply. In case they don't fix it, I will add a patch myself that I've
created for it. But I don't want to hide the error messages from those
commands, because this helps us identify if the fonts became somehow corrupt
during rebase. In that case, we can apply patches/report it to upstream, and
not just silently hide it.

NOTE: I will still be adding fontconfig & appstream files, but these are not
mandatory, and I will ask for a review of them in Fedora's fontconfig mailing
list. In other words, this is not a blocker for finishing the review.

Best regards,

Dee'Kej

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(dkas...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #26 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Package Review
==

ISSUES
==
- no owner of /usr/share/fonts
- misspelling (spec file l.235 - it -> if)
- too long descriptions in several subpackages
- maybe issue - fonts seems to be still not recognized as fonts (I cannot see
them by fontforge)
- maybe issue - messages during install process (previous comment)

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "AGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* AGPL (v3)", "Unknown or
 generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/urw-base35-fonts/review-
 urw-base35-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[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
[-]: 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.
[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 is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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).
[!]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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
   

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #25 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Issue when installing package (in Fedora 26) - IMO there shouldn't be any
messages:

$ sudo dnf -y install *.rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 0:08:41 ago on Fri 14 Jul 2017 05:44:47 PM
CEST.
Dependencies resolved.

 Package  Arch   Version RepositorySize

Installing:
 urw-base35-c059-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 667 k
 urw-base35-d05l-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline  50 k
 urw-base35-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 6.9 k
 replacing  urw-fonts.noarch 3:2.4-23.fc26
 urw-base35-fonts-common  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline  19 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 613 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 630 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 508 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 499 k
 urw-base35-p052-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 725 k
 urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline  39 k
 urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 637 k
 urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 483 k
 urw-base35-z003-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 197 k

Transaction Summary

Install  13 Packages

Total size: 5.0 M
Installed size: 7.6 M
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
Transaction test succeeded.
Running transaction
  Preparing:1/1 
  Installing   : urw-base35-fonts-common-20160926-1.fc26.noarch1/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  2/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  2/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  3/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  3/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.no4/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.no4/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noar5/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noar5/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc6/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc6/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  8/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  8/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc9/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc9/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc   10/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc   10/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch   11/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch   11/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-z003-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 12/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-z003-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 12/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  13/14 
  Obsoleting   : urw-fonts-3:2.4-23.fc26.noarch   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-fonts-3:2.4-23.fc26.noarch   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 14/14
<< Mentioned Issue>>
Unknown Type 1 weight "Bold Italic"
Couldn't determine weight for P052-BoldItalic.t1
Unknown Type 1 weight "Oblique"
Couldn't determine weight for NimbusSans-Oblique.t1
No protocol specified
xset:  unable to open display ":0"
<>
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.no   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noar   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc2   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 14/14 
  Running scriptlet: 

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(zdoh...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #24 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Output of rpmlint tests: 

- too long description in several packages

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.src.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: no-%build-section
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/urw-base35-20160926.zip (timeout
10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package
contains D05L font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font Set.
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-fonts-common-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Mono PS font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Roman font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans Narrow font family, which is part of Level 2 Core
Font Set.

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1470700




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470700
[Bug 1470700] ps2pdf crashes on s309x only: Error: /invalidfont in
/findfont
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zdoh...@redhat.com
  Flags|needinfo?(dkas...@redhat.co |needinfo?(zdoh...@redhat.co
   |m)  |m)



--- Comment #23 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Hello Zdenek,

I have done major rework of the specfile to simplify it more, and to adddress
the issues fedora-review tool found (and some others I have found myself).

Everything necessary should be commented to describe why it is packaged this
way.

Here is the updated version:
https://dkaspar.fedorapeople.org/share/reviews/urw-base35-fonts/v3/

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #22 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
repo-font-audit is broken since Fedora 23, see bug mentioned in 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dkas...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(dkas...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #21 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
The package is almost good to go, only to issues remaining:

1) directory ownership
2) long descriptions

Package Review
==

Issues
==

- long descriptions still present
- directory ownership

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "AGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* AGPL (v3)", "Unknown or
 generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/urw-base35-fonts/review-
 urw-base35-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts,
 /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35
[-]: 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.
[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 is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- mentioned above
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[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.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages 

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #20 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
So, based on your feedback, here's the version 2:

https://dkaspar.fedorapeople.org/share/reviews/urw-base35-fonts/v2/

I suggest you use diff to see the changes there made. ;)

* I have addressed some of the issues found by rpmlint.

* I have added the creation of fonts.scale & fonts.dir files (in %post
sections), so the fonts can be correctly displayed by xorg-x11.
* I have also added updating of fontconfig cache (in %post and %postun).

 ^^^ These 2 changes are to make the urw-fonts backward compatible, because the
old 'urw-fonts' package was creating/providing these files, and I don't want to
break any GUI applications. :)

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #19 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
I meant 'I use -i option for...'

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #18 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #17)
> (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #3)
> > urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
> > seconds)
> 
> Works for me: https://www.urwpp.de/en/

It's just info message - no worries about that. I use that for creating
understandable outputs, but this specific info message seems to be more
confusing than explaining.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #17 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #3)
> Now I'll post outputs of rpmlint of source rpm and binary rpms:
> 
> $ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.src.rpm 
> urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking
> urw-base35-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
> distributed, distributive, attributable
> The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/distributable
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/distributable

> urw-base35-fonts.src: E: description-line-too-long C This meta-package will
> install all the 35 fonts from the urw-base35-fonts sub-packages.
> Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
> this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

Fixed.

> urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
> seconds)

Works for me: https://www.urwpp.de/en/

> urw-base35-fonts.src: W: no-%build-section
> The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages don't
> directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
> provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of
> automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if empty.

We are not building the fonts from sources, and we certainly do not need
debuginfo packages for fonts.

> urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url
> http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/urw-base35-20160926.zip
> (timeout 10 seconds)
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

===

(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #4)
> $ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
> urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking
> urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
> (timeout 10 seconds)
> urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
> The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
> documentation files.

The documentation is not mandatory, and upstream does not provide any, because
again - there are just fonts. I will add the documentation if upstream creates
one in the future.

> 
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

This applies to other font subpackages as well.

===

(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #6)
> urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
> If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
> should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency
> breakage.
> If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
> leave out the Provides.

Here is the package being obsoleted:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=856388

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-z003-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-z003-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-z003-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-z003-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

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

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #15 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package
contains URW Gothic font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #14 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains URW Bookman font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #13 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C
This package contains Standard Symbols PS font family, which are part of Level
2 Core Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-p052-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-p052-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-p052-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

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

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #11 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans Narrow font family, which are part of Level 2 Core
Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

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

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Roman font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #8 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Mono PS font family, which are part of Level 2 Core
Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-common-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

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

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

urw-base35-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This meta-package will
install all the 35 fonts from the urw-base35-fonts sub-packages.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package
contains D05L font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

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

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Now I'll post outputs of rpmlint of source rpm and binary rpms:

$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.src.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

urw-base35-fonts.src: E: description-line-too-long C This meta-package will
install all the 35 fonts from the urw-base35-fonts sub-packages.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of
automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if empty.

urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/urw-base35-20160926.zip (timeout
10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

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

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Hi David,

thanks, I'll look into it.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zdoh...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Hello Zdenek,

could you please look at this new package? You might need additional FPG,
because this is the fonts package. Here are the useful links related to fonts
in Fedora:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

Some of the policies were deliberately bypassed, because they either don't
apply here, would make maintenance here harder or just does not make any sense
in this case. The whole reasoning about how the package was created is written
in the 
beginning of the specfile. Please, read it, if you can.

Here are the mailing list threads about this package I've started before:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RUI5GH3LBSQTKBF6HDIW6RRC6CYOVZAT/#RUI5GH3LBSQTKBF6HDIW6RRC6CYOVZAT
[Versioning Mess of previous 'urw-fonts' package]

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fo...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/QUBMTGEID4KV6V6R26VZRYIYZWTCNJEI/
[Request for exception #1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fo...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/EO4N666V6V4VJGRBPH7Y4VG3YSDN64TN/
[Request for exception #2]

--

One thing that is not mentioned there is Grouping:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Grouping
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fo...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CEGLZXCXTHD7TMS7AQ5KQPPNT7NAXUBZ/

As I understand the wiki, the Grouping does not apply for these fonts, because
they are not meant just for some languages, like e.g. DejaVu fonts for Cyrrilic
writings.

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me. :)

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org