https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |panemade(a)gmail.com CC| |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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 --- Comment #2 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- SPEC: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/raw/main/SPECS/fbf-ani-fo... SRPM: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-ani-fonts/raw/main/SRPMS/fbf-ani-fo... This is local buil in my FC34 installation -- 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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- 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 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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 --- Comment #8 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- 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. [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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/fbf-ani-fonts/2051879-fbf-ani- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [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 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: 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 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2051879 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, R, Python, C/C++, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH COMMENTS 1) Exceptions from GPL are unclear. Is it possible to elaborate on these? 2) Ani-about has some minor typos, perhaps use: Ani is a open source opentype font relased under GNU GPL It contains basic latin and Bengali characters with OpenType tables for Bengali conjucts. It presently support Unicode 14.0 for Bengali. Characters are designed like hand written ones. . 3) The ttname and repo-font-audit tools are not currently useable, so can ignore these 4) Minor suggestion, perhaps update the description in the spec file to: Ani font contains Bengali and latin characters designed using a hand written style. It was developed in 2002 and is currently updated to the Unicode 14.0 standard. 5) In the spec file, rather than use %global fonts *.ttf use %global fonts Ani.ttf as the files should be explicitly specified 6) Primary architectures are listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Primary_Architectures and linked from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_... and are x86_64, AArch64 and ARM-hfp , on COPR, ARM-hfp is not yet enabled -- 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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 --- Comment #10 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing license "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, with font embedding exception" denoted by "GPLv3+ with exceptions" seems to be ok, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException -- 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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Assignee|panemade(a)gmail.com |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW -- 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=2051879

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mitra_anirban@yah |needinfo- |oo.co.in) | --- Comment #14 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in&gt; --- I am still interested in review of this package. -- 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=2051879 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...