[Bug 2132139] New: xkeyboard-config-2.37 is available
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132139
Bug ID: 2132139
Summary: xkeyboard-config-2.37 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: xkeyboard-config
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: peter.hutterer(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, caillon+fedoraproject(a)gmail.com,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
negativo17(a)gmail.com, peter.hutterer(a)redhat.com,
rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com,
sandmann(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Releases retrieved: 2.37
Upstream release that is considered latest: 2.37
Current version/release in rawhide: 2.36-2.fc37
URL: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/XKeyboardConfig/
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release...
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from Anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/5191/
To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xkeyboard-config
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132139
7 months, 3 weeks
[Bug 2166813] Rename Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Serif
font metric-compatible with Cambria font
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166813
Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-crosextra-caladea-fonts
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== 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.
[?]: 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/google-crosextra-
caladea-fonts/review-google-crosextra-caladea-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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 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.
[ ]: 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.
[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.
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: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts-1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38.noarch.rpm
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts-1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1o4vmukh')]
checks: 31, packages: 2
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided
ht-caladea-fonts
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
1.002-0.15.20130214 ['1:1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38', '1:1.002-0.15.20130214']
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
2.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided
ht-caladea-fonts
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
1.002-0.15.20130214 ['1:1.002-0.15.20130214.fc38', '1:1.002-0.15.20130214']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s
Source checksums
----------------
http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-localmirror/distfiles/crosextrafonts-...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
c48d1c2fd613c9c06c959c34da7b8388059e2408d2bb19845dc3ed35f76e4d09
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c48d1c2fd613c9c06c959c34da7b8388059e2408d2bb19845dc3ed35f76e4d09
Requires
--------
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(google-crosextra-caladea-fonts)
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts:
config(google-crosextra-caladea-fonts)
font(caladea)
google-crosextra-caladea-fonts
metainfo()
metainfo(org.fedoraproject.google-crosextra-caladea-fonts.metainfo.xml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n google-crosextra-caladea-fonts
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: fonts, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Ruby, Python,
SugarActivity, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments:
a) Please update version in changelog on import
b) Should license file be added? If so, please add on import. otfinfo does give
license information, and the URL
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
c) Will check metrics separately, maybe upstream for Caladea will accept a pull
request
Approved
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166813
7 months, 3 weeks