https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - Own this dir: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/foundation-icons - Escape the macros in comment 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 291 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/foundation-icons-fonts/review-foundation- icons-fonts/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/foundation-icons [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: foundation-icons-fonts-web-3.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm foundation-icons-fonts-web.noarch: W: no-documentation foundation-icons-fonts.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname} foundation-icons-fonts.src:62: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2} foundation-icons-fonts.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} foundation-icons-fonts.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} foundation-icons-fonts.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname} foundation-icons-fonts.src:67: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} foundation-icons-fonts.src:67: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} foundation-icons-fonts.src:67: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname} foundation-icons-fonts.src:70: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname} foundation-icons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 13: %{fontname}.metainfo.xml foundation-icons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error foundation-icons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 13: %{fontname}.metainfo.xml 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net&gt; --- (most web font formats are legact garbage, and woff is sequivalent to opentype, except it's not supported in apps, so it's a form of drm for proprietary fonts. We don't allow those in Fedora, just use opentype everywhere) -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net&gt; --- It is not a stupid question, the font situation is a mess because everyone thinks it is simple, no one makes an effort to do things cleanly, and as a result fixing things falls on packagers. Yes, you can just remove all the other formats, and keep only the opentype file (just check in a browser in case you made a typo somewhere) As far as I know, caniuse is the reference to check if a feature is supported in browsers. It's a thankless inventory task no one else wants to do. -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #7 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; --- Thanks for the explanations Nicolas. Here's an updated version : Spec URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/foundation-icons-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-2.fc31.s... Changelog: * Wed Jul 17 2019 Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; - 3.0-2 - Package TTF font only and add patch to fix CSS accordingly. - Update descriptions and summaries. - Drop commented out appstream support. -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net&gt; --- (In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #7) Sorry about that, not wasting time on manual appstream files is perfectly fine, they don't contain any info not already present in the rpm package, so the next generation of font macros will just generate them (as it should have been done in the first place) I really need to finish this and send it to FPC :( -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #11 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; --- Crap, I reset the fedora-review flag :-( Robert-André, can you please fix my mistake ? Sorry about that... -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #12 from Mohan Boddu <mboddu(a)bhujji.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/foundation-icons-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=1728307 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2019-e32fb9f542 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e32fb9f542 -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-e32fb9f542 -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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-EPEL-2019-d3dc6e0576 -- 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=1728307 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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