May 2022 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 2077991] CVE-2022-27405 FreeType: Segementation Fault

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077991 Bug 2077991 depends on bug 2079255, which changed state. Bug 2079255 Summary: CVE-2022-27405 freetype: Segementation Fault [fedora-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079255 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077991

1 year, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2077989] CVE-2022-27404 FreeType: Buffer Overflow

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077989 Bug 2077989 depends on bug 2079203, which changed state. Bug 2079203 Summary: CVE-2022-27404 freetype: Buffer Overflow [fedora-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079203 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077989

1 year, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2077985] CVE-2022-27406 Freetype: Segmentation violation

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077985 Bug 2077985 depends on bug 2079181, which changed state. Bug 2079181 Summary: CVE-2022-27406 freetype: Segmentation violation [fedora-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079181 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077985

1 year, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Successful Mail Delivery Report

by Mail Delivery System

This is the mail system at host mailman01.iad2.fedoraproject.org. Your message was successfully delivered to the destination(s) listed below. If the message was delivered to mailbox you will receive no further notifications. Otherwise you may still receive notifications of mail delivery errors from other systems. The mail system <fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>: delivery via spamassassin: delivered via spamassassin service

1 year, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2051879] Review Request: fbf-ani-fonts - Script like Bengali Font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 --- Comment #7 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in> --- SPEC:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fb... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fbf-fon... To build properly in copr the build number had to be incremented with each change in spec and changelog added -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879

1 year, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2081539] Review Request: vazirmatn-fonts - A simple and legible Persian/Arabic typeface

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539 Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

1 year, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2051879] Review Request: fbf-ani-fonts - Script like Bengali Font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> --- 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879

1 year, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2051879] Review Request: fbf-ani-fonts - Script like Bengali Font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org --- Comment #5 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> --- 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879

1 year, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2080714] New: freetype-2.12.1 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2080714 Bug ID: 2080714 Summary: freetype-2.12.1 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: freetype Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, caillon+fedoraproject(a)gmail.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, gnome-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, mclasen(a)redhat.com, mkasik(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 2.12.1 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.12.0-1.fc37 URL: https://www.freetype.org/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from Anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/854/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2080714

1 year, 12 months

1
4
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs May 2022