https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805738
Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |panemade(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |panemade(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> ---
Review:
This package follows new fonts packaging guidelines.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ht-alegreya-sans-fonts-2.008-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts-2.008-1.fc33.src.rpm
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ludic ->
lucid, ludicrous
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/ht-alegreya-sans-fonts/OFL.txt
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/ht-alegreya-sans-fonts/OFL.txt
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ludic ->
lucid, ludicrous
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/huertatipografica/Alegreya-Sans/archive/v2.008/Alegreya-…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ea545572d49e18e675d6b72a6754da344e24b9cacc3d2b76c1eb2bf9ae73a402
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ea545572d49e18e675d6b72a6754da344e24b9cacc3d2b76c1eb2bf9ae73a402
Requires
--------
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(ht-alegreya-sans-fonts)
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts:
config(ht-alegreya-sans-fonts)
font(alegreyasans)
font(alegreyasansblack)
font(alegreyasansextrabold)
font(alegreyasanslight)
font(alegreyasansmedium)
font(alegreyasansthin)
ht-alegreya-sans-fonts
metainfo()
metainfo(org.fedoraproject.ht-alegreya-sans-fonts.metainfo.xml)
All other things like license, config, metainfo files looks good.
Issues:
1) Fix the rpmlint warnings/errors before import of this package
2) I looked for %license in this package spec but cannot find it. Shouldn't we
need to mark some file say OFL.txt as %license?
I see in other packages when you create -doc subpackage %license gets marked
automatically.
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805752
Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |panemade(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |panemade(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> ---
Review:
This package follows new fonts packaging guidelines.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jetbrains-mono-fonts-1.0.3-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
jetbrains-mono-fonts-1.0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
jetbrains-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono
space, mono-space, aerospace
jetbrains-mono-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US сut
jetbrains-mono-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.03-1
['1.0.3-1.fc33', '1.0.3-1']
jetbrains-mono-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monospace -> mono
space, mono-space, aerospace
jetbrains-mono-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US сut
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/JetBrains/JetBrainsMono/archive/v1.0.3/JetBrainsMono-1.0…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
24b423336d702e209a7181873300f855078d2c47e1a519c63ce57755ea7569ea
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
24b423336d702e209a7181873300f855078d2c47e1a519c63ce57755ea7569ea
Requires
--------
jetbrains-mono-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(jetbrains-mono-fonts)
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
jetbrains-mono-fonts:
config(jetbrains-mono-fonts)
font(jetbrainsmono)
font(jetbrainsmonoextrabold)
font(jetbrainsmonomedium)
jetbrains-mono-fonts
metainfo()
metainfo(org.fedoraproject.jetbrains-mono-fonts.metainfo.xml)
All other things like license, config, metainfo files looks good.
Issues:
1) Fix the rpmlint warnings/errors before import of this package
2) I looked for %license in this package spec but cannot find it. Shouldn't we
need to mark some file say OFL.txt as %license?
I see in other packages when you create -doc subpackage %license gets marked
automatically.
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805743
Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |panemade(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |panemade(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> ---
Review:
This package follows new fonts packaging guidelines.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking:
impallari-dancing-script-fonts-2.000-1.20191208gitf7f54bc.fc33.noarch.rpm
impallari-dancing-script-fonts-2.000-1.20191208gitf7f54bc.fc33.src.rpm
impallari-dancing-script-fonts.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/impallari-dancing-script-fonts/FONTLOG.txt
impallari-dancing-script-fonts.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/impallari-dancing-script-fonts/FONTLOG.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/impallari/DancingScript/archive/f7f54bc1b8836601dae86966…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f9e396da5f5ead7073d6106c39d4bc849fb193afd0dd4cece2fae7549401bedd
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f9e396da5f5ead7073d6106c39d4bc849fb193afd0dd4cece2fae7549401bedd
Requires
--------
impallari-dancing-script-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(impallari-dancing-script-fonts)
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
impallari-dancing-script-fonts:
config(impallari-dancing-script-fonts)
font(dancingscript)
impallari-dancing-script-fonts
metainfo()
metainfo(org.fedoraproject.impallari-dancing-script-fonts.metainfo.xml)
All other things like license, config, metainfo files looks good.
Issues:
1) Fix the rpmlint warnings/errors before import of this package
2) I looked for %license in this package spec but cannot find it. Shouldn't we
need to mark some file say OFL.txt as %license?
I see in other packages when you create -doc subpackage %license gets marked
automatically.
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807317
Bug ID: 1807317
Summary: upgrade of dejavu-fonts-common
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: dejavu-fonts
Severity: high
Assignee: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net
Reporter: grgoffe(a)yahoo.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, paul(a)frixxon.co.uk,
peter(a)thecodergeek.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem: Attempting to upgrade all the groups installed on this
system but most do not upgrade due to a problem with dejavu-fonts-common.
For example:
dnf -y group install --with-optional --best 'Xfce Desktop'
Error:
Problem: problem with installed package python3-weasyprint-51-2.fc32.noarch
- package python3-weasyprint-51-2.fc32.noarch requires dejavu-fonts-common, but
none of the providers can be installed
- package python3-weasyprint-50-1.fc32.noarch requires dejavu-fonts-common, but
none of the providers can be installed
- package python3-weasyprint-51-1.fc32.noarch requires dejavu-fonts-common, but
none of the providers can be installed
- package dejavu-sans-fonts-2.37-5.fc33.noarch obsoletes dejavu-fonts-common <
2.37-5.fc33 provided by dejavu-fonts-common-2.37-3.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
dejavu-fonts-common-2.37-3.fc32.noarch
How reproducible:
see above
Steps to Reproduce:
1.dnf -y group install --with-optional --best 'Xfce Desktop'
2.
3.
Actual results:
see above
Expected results:
Additional info:
dnf upgrade dejavu-fonts-common
Last metadata expiration check: 2:48:52 ago on Tue 25 Feb 2020 05:40:11 PM PST.
Dependencies resolved.
Problem: problem with installed package python3-weasyprint-51-2.fc32.noarch
- package python3-weasyprint-51-2.fc32.noarch requires dejavu-fonts-common, but
none of the providers can be installed
- package dejavu-sans-fonts-2.37-5.fc33.noarch obsoletes dejavu-fonts-common <
2.37-5.fc33 provided by dejavu-fonts-common-2.37-3.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best update candidate for package
dejavu-fonts-common-2.37-3.fc32.noarch
Nothing to do.
Complete!
dejavu-fonts-common-2.37-3.fc32.noarch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400602
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed| |2020-02-26 07:23:59
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507146
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed| |2020-02-26 07:21:22
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
fontpackages is now retired and replaced by fonts-rpm-macros
Also this kind of check belongs in fontconfig
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507145
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed| |2020-02-26 07:20:47
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
fontpackages is now retired and replaced by fonts-rpm-macros
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.