https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- 1) disttag is not present. You need to write Release: 1 as Release: 1%{?dist} Read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ 2) The Source0 line is not the way it should be written. Read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_usi... You need to use forge macros then it will be easy to write as Source0: %{forgesource} 3) you should release the tarball in upstream. This is not good to add tarball as a file in upstream git repository. Forge macros usage need commit or tag to be written in SPEC file. 4) Avoid adding too many empty lines -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Currently I am unable to open https://mitradranirban/font-uniol Once I see its contents I can provide similar suggestions as I did in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456#c18 -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Please correct the tag. You tagged version as "1" which should be "1.0.0". Once this is fixed, we can check later how to write SPEC using forge macros. -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #8 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- Corrected SPEC as suggested https://github.com/mitradranirban/uniol-fonts/raw/main/SPECS/uniol-fonts.... Also added generate.pe and fontconfig to upstream source and bumped its version and tag to 1.0.1 Still build failed in copr http://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mitradranirban/uniol-fonts/build/3... May be I should try the alternate method of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_usi... instead of forgesource -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #10 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/uniol-f... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/uniol-f... $ rpmlint uniol-fonts.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint uniol-fonts-1.0.1-5.fc35.src.rpm uniol-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ol -> O, L, Ola uniol-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ued -> ed, used, sued uniol-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US variouss -> various, various s, vagarious Error checking signature of uniol-fonts-1.0.1-5.fc35.src.rpm: uniol-fonts-1.0.1-5.fc35.src.rpm: digests SIGNATURES NOT OK rpmlint uniol-fonts-1.0.1-5.fc35.noarch.rpm uniol-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ol -> O, L, Ola uniol-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ued -> ed, used, sued uniol-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US variouss -> various, various s, vagarious Error checking signature of uniol-fonts-1.0.1-5.fc35.noarch.rpm: uniol-fonts-1.0.1-5.fc35.noarch.rpm: digests SIGNATURES NOT OK 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- 1) You don't need below lines BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel Requires: fontpackages-filesystem These packages does not exists now in Fedora and replaced by fonts-rpm-macros package. 2) You should add one space between "*" and "Sun" in Changelog entries. 3) Also, try to give correct URLs of SPEC and SRPM without error so that I can run fedora-review on this bug. -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- You got wrong syntax for disttag. Please check again comment#1 in this bug. You need to use Release: 5%{?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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- 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", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/2050295-uniol- 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 [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 1 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]: 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: [x]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mitradranirban/font-uniol/archive/v1.0.1/font-uniol-1.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8a391884c1acda1824eed11983e71a8e49dda67b6ff1a1e02819df18638cb7bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8a391884c1acda1824eed11983e71a8e49dda67b6ff1a1e02819df18638cb7bf Requires -------- uniol-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(uniol-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- uniol-fonts: config(uniol-fonts) font(uniol) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.uniol-fonts.metainfo.xml) uniol-fonts Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2050295 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, R, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH This package now looks good. APPROVED. -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #18 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Sure I will guide you. Let's finish all your 4 package reviews and then I will sponsor you. -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #19 from Igor Raits <igor.raits(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uniol-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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4d96088a85 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4d96088a85 -- 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=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-76ec126c4f 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-2022-76ec126c4f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-76ec126c4f 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4d96088a85 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=2050295