March 2020 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1805779] Review Request: pt-sans-fonts - A grotesque pan-Cyrillic font family

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805779 --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> --- Apologies that this created some work for you, Adam. There was few thoughts going in my mind when I approved this package review without mandating Provides: tag but I clearly missed further steps required for this package. These thoughts were like adapting to new fonts packaging in Fedora, packages getting renamed due to that in Fedora, RHEL N+1 upgrade path, keeping "Obsoletes: and Provides:" tag for many years and then is no way to auto cross-check these old "Obsoletes: and Provides:" tag in existing spec files. I understand its package maintainer responsibility to add and remove "Obsoletes: and Provides:" tag when time comes. There are few more font packages now in queue that are ready to get renamed in Fedora when they will adapt to new fonts packaging guidelines. While I missed that point about clean upgrade path for this package. I did remember it for my other packages, hence my work on converting existing packages to new guidelines is stalled currently. I have got one rename review (google-carlito-fonts) approved since few days but have not built it in Fedora yet as it also involves changing package name to all those places. But now I am going to build it today. About querying package dependencies, I am surprised why Fedora users are not affected by this dnf bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812596 which should have been fixed on urgent basis. It is present in at least F31 and F32 releases. This is causing me issues to understand package dependency chain. Its good that RHEL-8 is not poisoned by introducing new dnf updates yet. So, I am using it to understand probable dependency chain in Fedora. It is good that failed-composes repository is helping releng to quickly find such issues but I understand is costs one more complete compose to have reported issues fixed. I will make sure to check for further steps taken on such rename request packages in my future package review work. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1811295] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A versatile font family for screen, print, and Web

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2020-f056e46cfa has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f056e46cfa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f056e46cfa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1805779] Review Request: pt-sans-fonts - A grotesque pan-Cyrillic font family

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805779 --- Comment #10 from Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> --- PRs for this rename: https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/477 https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/620 (for the record, though you should put in the Provides: as the policy says, it's also important to update comps and kickstarts for the new names. This is because some tools/processes that read the comps and kickstarts will only accept them as literal binary package names; if an entry isn't a package name but is provided by some package, they won't pull that package in, they'll either just skip it or fail, depends on the context. *Other* tools/processes that read the files *do* pull packages in by Provides. It's a lot of fun!) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1805779] Review Request: pt-sans-fonts - A grotesque pan-Cyrillic font family

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805779 --- Comment #9 from Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> --- Please note also going forward that fonts are often listed in https://pagure.io/fedora-comps and https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts . If you're going to be systematically renaming a lot of font packages it would be a good idea to write into the process that those two repos plus https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config should be checked and PRs submitted if necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1805779] Review Request: pt-sans-fonts - A grotesque pan-Cyrillic font family

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805779 Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |awilliam(a)redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> --- Re: comment #3 and #4 - this was IMO a clear violation of the packaging guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required states "The reviewer of the package MUST...check the package for the proper Obsoletes and Provides (see the naming guidelines for more information.) They MUST document in the review request that they have done so", and the renaming policy - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-re... - states: "If a package is being renamed without any functional changes, or is a compatible enough replacement to an existing package (where "enough" means that it includes only changes of magnitude that are commonly found in version upgrade changes), provide clean upgrade paths and compatibility with: Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR " there is no weasel wording in either of those places that makes the Provides: optional. It is clearly mandatory. Nicolas should not have chosen to leave it out, and Parag should not have approved the package without it. Just querying package dependencies is not sufficient to decide that nothing depends on it (to say nothing of the possibility that external packages do), because we have other tools and configuration that potentially use package names and provides, as https://github.com/fedora-silverblue/issue-tracker/issues/33 shows. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1809918] Review Request: adobe-afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Summary|Review Request: afdko - |Review Request: adobe-afdko |Adobe Font Development Kit |- Adobe Font Development |for OpenType |Kit for OpenType --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- - Bump to 3.2.0 - Not needed: %ldconfig_scriptlets - Include docs/ %doc docs/ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 6815 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/adobe-afdko/review-adobe- afdko/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 163840 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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. [x]: 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. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: adobe-afdko-3.0.1-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm adobe-afdko-debuginfo-3.0.1-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm adobe-afdko-debugsource-3.0.1-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm adobe-afdko-3.0.1-4.fc33.src.rpm adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary detype1 adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary makeotf adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mergefonts adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rotatefont adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfntdiff adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfntedit adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spot adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tx adobe-afdko.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary type1 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1811295] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A versatile font family for screen, print, and Web

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2020-bbcc3e9d7d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bbcc3e9d7d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bbcc3e9d7d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A sharp on-screen sans-serif font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2020-03-25 13:46:34 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- Ok, I believe we’ve all waited long enough *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1811295 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1811295] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A versatile font family for screen, print, and Web

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- *** Bug 1795974 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1811295] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A versatile font family for screen, print, and Web

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2020-f056e46cfa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f056e46cfa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs March 2020