https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade(a)gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |<fbf-mukti-fonts> - <Bangla |fbf-mukti-fonts - Bangla |open source Opentype font> |open source Opentype font -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(panemade(a)gmail.co | |m) --- Comment #2 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- removed %dnl lines from spec as suggested by @panemade(a)gmail.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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #4 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- This font was in wishlist of Fedora Fonts SIG https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mukti_narrow_fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |panemade(a)gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Review of your package submission. 1) Your package SPEC file name and SRPM name should be matching. Your SRPM name is fbf-mukti-fonts which is correct but SPEC file is fonts-mukti so fix this 2) I see un-necessary global definition of fontfamily %global fontfamily mukti you already defined this as fontfamily0 3) Font license should be from Fedora approved license list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main You wrote "GPl3+FontException" which is not correct. Correct way to write license tag is "GPLv3+ with exceptions" 4) For single font family packaging you can drop "0" suffix from fontfamily0, fontsummary0, fonts0, fontconfs0, fontdescription0 variables 5) You don't need to pass any argument to macro %fontpkg 6) I have not seen anyone using %sourcelist for any font packaging so drop it 7) I don't know why you added below line in your spec file. I don't think its needed. %foundry-%fontfamily-fonts-%version.tar.gz 8) You can take an example of how already some font has been packaged. Let's take madan-fonts as an example. See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/madan-fonts/ 9) Your each %changelog entry should add "-<release>" so your last entry should have been * Fri Jan 28 2022 21:42:16 +0530 Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; - 3.0.1-1 Fix the above issues and update Release: to 2 and add relevant new changelog entry. During review whenever you fix your SPEC file, you should update release tag and add changelog entry and provide updated SPEC and SRPM links again. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #8 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- Spec URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fon... SRPM URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fon... Description: <This is a one of the earliest Open Source OpenType Bengali / Bangla font It was made by using good quality glyphs of GPLed font bng2-n from Cyberscape Multimedia <https://web.archive.org/web/20021113130716/http://www.akruti.com/freedom/>;. It was made for Mukta Bangla Font project.> Fedora Account System Username:mitradranirban Changes suggested by reviewer but could not be done as making such change leads to failure to build 1. %global fontfamily mukti must be declared before %global licences otherwise rpmbuild fails - telling fbf-fontfamily-fonts-3.0.1 directory not fount 2. %sourcelist must be followed by %foundry-%fontfamily-fonts-%version.tar.gz - otherwise build fails telling source0 not found while doing local build As suggested by reviewer, I am trying some unofficial review using fedora-review tool -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #10 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- Build 3 This time build from sfd source as mandated by GPLv3 SPEC URL; https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fon... SRPM URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fon... -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #12 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- As I have been asked to submit more review requests to indicate I understand the packaging process, I have already proposed to pack another of my fonts uniol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295. Two of my Bangla fonts Ani and Mukti are also in the pipe line for submission. About new build of fbf-fonts-mukti, after changing the fontconfig file, build fails with message <code> ~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.1-4.x86_64/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf:2: validity error : Validation failed: no DTD found ! <fontconfig> ^ error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ag61S3 (%check) </code> -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Use forge macros also here. Read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_usi... -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #16 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Ah, this is not the way any software upstream should do. You need to maintain proper commits. I request to first commit your font development related files in upstream. Tag them for initial release. Release tarball and use it for Fedora packaging. e.g. See this font project https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/MeeraNew/-/tree/main how they are maintaining their development history. Then see how when they want to release they are tagging https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/MeeraNew/-/tags At least I will ask for proper tarball release. You are keep updating tarball for every fix I suggested. Remember once your package is in Fedora and you need to fix minor thing and you do the same thing, its problem in Fedora. Fedora packaging store sha512sum of your tarball and it MUST be same whenever someone verifies it. Once released tarball, any fix you should bump the tarball version and release it. I really think you should take some time to learn how to host a project and release a tarball. If the forge macros are not working for you then you can use https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git... but again you need to provide git commit id or tag. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #18 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Okay. Let's take upstream as https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti Then it will be easy to package in Fedora. 1) Use URL as %global forgeurl https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti 2)You still have wrong license tag. Use correct as %global fontlicense GPLv3+ with exceptions 3) Use as 3rd line in your spec file %global tag v3.0.1 4) then Source0: %{forgesource} 5) Change %setup -q -n %{foundry}-%{fontfamily}-fonts-%{version} to %forgesetup 6)Remember common things to package are written together. For this package you should write %global foundry fbf %global fontlicense GPLv3+ with exceptions %global fontlicenses LICENCE.txt %global fontdocs *.txt %global fontdocsex %{fontlicenses} 7) Then we write per family information. For this package you should write %global fontfamily mukti %global fontsummary Bangla open source Opentype font %global fonts *.otf %global fontconfs 66-0-%{fontpkgname}.conf 8) Remaining SPEC sections are also written together. You should write %prep %forgesetup chmod 755 generate.pe ./generate.pe *.sfd %build %fontbuild %install %fontinstall %check %fontcheck -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #20 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- If upstream follows correct way of development, tagging and release then forge macros are also very much simpler. 1) The way we write tag is just tagged value not complete "refs/tags/v3.0.2". But this is optional as you are using commit hash way to fetch upstream tarball from github. 2) You need to write Source0 as Source0: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%... 3) It appears as suggested in my previous comment, you have not fixed license tag. Use %global fontlicense GPLv3+ with exceptions 4) Also when you write SPEC file, Good to use empty characters are space character not tabs to separate two consecutive words. Currently it seems you got fbf-mukti-fonts.spec:20: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 20) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #23 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- you forgot to re-set the release tag to "1" when you change the version number. your srpm should be fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #25 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I checked changelog entries in your comment#22 submission. Please add back relevant changelog for releases 3.0.2-1 and 3.0.2-2 you went from 3.0.1-4 to 3.0.2-3 in your comment#22 submission. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #27 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- You got wrong syntax for disttag. You need to use Release: 3%{?dist} -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #29 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- this is the output i got with fedora-review -p -n fbf-mukti-fonts https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/review.txt -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #31 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Suggestions: 1) Good if you remove empty lines in 66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf file. ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/2048456-fbf-mukti- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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 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. [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- ==================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ==================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/SOURCES/66-0-f... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151 https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/archive/v3.0.2/fonts-mukti-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cd1f332e5249b1543cb874f8215218d1d81ee110cf8ae4ff8e577d2bb223198a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cd1f332e5249b1543cb874f8215218d1d81ee110cf8ae4ff8e577d2bb223198a Requires -------- fbf-mukti-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- fbf-mukti-fonts: fbf-mukti-fonts font(mukti) font(মুক্তি) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.fbf-mukti-fonts.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2048456 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, R, PHP, Java, C/C++, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH APPROVED this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #33 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I decided to sponsor you now as other 2 package review may take some time. Can you please login to https://src.fedoraproject.org and then logout to refresh your account status? The next process is described here -> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Proc... 1) Once you login and logout 2) you need to run this command in your terminal fedpkg request-repo fbf-mukti-fonts 2048456 then fedpkg request-branch --repo fbf-mukti-fonts f36 fedpkg request-branch --repo fbf-mukti-fonts f35 fedpkg request-branch --repo fbf-mukti-fonts f34 When you run these commands, you will get in return ticket URL's which you can track. These tickets will get resolved in 24-48 hrs Then proceed with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Proc... Do let me know if you got any questions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #34 from Igor Raits <igor.raits(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fbf-mukti-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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-abd3307aea has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456