Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03382594-fbf-ani-fonts/fbf-ani-fonts.spec SRPM URL: <srpm info here> Description: Ani font shows Bengali characters like hand written one with unique Latin characters. It was developed in 2002 and is currently updated to Unicode 14.0 standard. Fedora Account System Username:mitradranirban I am original developer at https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-fbf-beng I will need sponsor as I am not an approved maintainer Copr builds available at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/builds/
Please add again SPEC and SRPM, I can't run fedora-review tool on this package review bug.
SPEC: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/raw/main/SPECS/fbf-ani-fonts.spec SRPM: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/raw/main/SRPMS/fbf-ani-fonts-1.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm This is local buil in my FC34 installation
Link of Copr build for Rawhide SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03382594-fbf-ani-fonts/fbf-ani-fonts.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03382594-fbf-ani-fonts/fbf-ani-fonts-1.0.2-1.fc36.src.rpm
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-fonts-all/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03530875-fbf-ani-fonts/fbf-ani-fonts.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-fonts-all/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03530875-fbf-ani-fonts/fbf-ani-fonts-1.0.2-2.fc37.src.rpm separated sources of fonts at upstream
Thanks for this contribution. When trying to build it, get the warning `realpath: LICENCE: No such file or directory` In the spec file, please change the line %global fontlicenses LICENCE to %global fontlicenses LICENSE
Unofficial review on Fedora 34. Initial comments (further review in progress): 1. Please see license information in previous comment 2. Change log should have only one entry since this is the initial version 3. It would be helpful to run your COPR builds on more architectures Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file Ani-copyright is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/benson/Projects/FedoraMagazine/fbf-ani-fonts/2051879-fbf-ani- fonts/licensecheck.txt [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [?]: 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 3 files. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: undefined [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Rpmlint ------- Checking: fbf-ani-fonts-1.0.2-2.fc34.noarch.rpm fbf-ani-fonts-1.0.2-2.fc34.src.rpm fbf-ani-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US latin -> Latin, lain, satin fbf-ani-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US latin -> Latin, lain, satin fbf-ani-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.nongnu.org/freebangfont <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> fbf-ani-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.nongnu.org/freebangfont/dl/ani-1.0.2.tar.gz <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fbf-ani-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US latin -> Latin, lain, satin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://www.nongnu.org/freebangfont/dl/ani-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b1812808c6249a2c5284fc5d11b72f926735a1e4d2b73fba2fcfb7caaeb41f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b1812808c6249a2c5284fc5d11b72f926735a1e4d2b73fba2fcfb7caaeb41f7 Requires -------- fbf-ani-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(fbf-ani-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- fbf-ani-fonts: config(fbf-ani-fonts) fbf-ani-fonts font(ani) font(অনি) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.fbf-ani-fonts.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2051879 -m fedora-34-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-34-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Python, PHP, R, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
SPEC:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-fonts-all/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04369233-fbf-ani-fonts/fbf-ani-fonts.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-fonts-all/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04369233-fbf-ani-fonts/fbf-ani-fonts-1.0.2-3.fc37.src.rpm To build properly in copr the build number had to be incremented with each change in spec and changelog added
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file Ani-copyright is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [?]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/fbf-ani-fonts/2051879-fbf-ani- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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 3 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: undefined [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://www.nongnu.org/freebangfont/dl/ani-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b1812808c6249a2c5284fc5d11b72f926735a1e4d2b73fba2fcfb7caaeb41f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b1812808c6249a2c5284fc5d11b72f926735a1e4d2b73fba2fcfb7caaeb41f7 Requires -------- fbf-ani-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(fbf-ani-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- fbf-ani-fonts: config(fbf-ani-fonts) fbf-ani-fonts font(ani) font(অনি) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.fbf-ani-fonts.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2051879 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, R, Python, C/C++, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH COMMENTS 1) Exceptions from GPL are unclear. Is it possible to elaborate on these? 2) Ani-about has some minor typos, perhaps use: Ani is a open source opentype font relased under GNU GPL It contains basic latin and Bengali characters with OpenType tables for Bengali conjucts. It presently support Unicode 14.0 for Bengali. Characters are designed like hand written ones. . 3) The ttname and repo-font-audit tools are not currently useable, so can ignore these 4) Minor suggestion, perhaps update the description in the spec file to: Ani font contains Bengali and latin characters designed using a hand written style. It was developed in 2002 and is currently updated to the Unicode 14.0 standard. 5) In the spec file, rather than use %global fonts *.ttf use %global fonts Ani.ttf as the files should be explicitly specified 6) Primary architectures are listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Primary_Architectures and linked from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support and are x86_64, AArch64 and ARM-hfp , on COPR, ARM-hfp is not yet enabled
It would also be good to move the command that builds the font from the sfd file into the build section of the spec file, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_legacy_deprecated_formats
From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing license "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, with font embedding exception" denoted by "GPLv3+ with exceptions" seems to be ok, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
You might also try using the flag %autochangelog macro https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpm_level_auto_release_and_changelog_bumping
The package seems to function correctly. Though an unofficial review, would recommend packaging provided builds on all architectures are done. Improved grammar in the spec file description would also be nice. Thanks for the contribution.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
I am still interested in review of this package.