https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918394
Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora(a)gmail.com> ---
Package is APPROVED. The fedora-review script has a few complaints below, but
I checked them manually and they're false positives.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
===== 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: "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License", "Unknown or
generated",
"SIL Open Font License 1.1". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /tmp/1918394-steinberg-petaluma-
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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 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]: 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).
[x]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[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
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.8 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR =
mock-2.8-1.fc33)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.8
INFO: Mock Version: 2.8
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/tmp/1918394-steinberg-petaluma-fonts/results/steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/tmp/1918394-steinberg-petaluma-fonts/results/steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking:
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.noarch.rpm
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-1.055-1.20190129gitc7a3e8e.fc34.src.rpm
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/steinbergmedia/petaluma/archive/c7a3e8edba148915e5d1af...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
40f376d938ecab5485ce75b0470cb53abec941c0308cc82e27b9ebdc90f4bb24
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
40f376d938ecab5485ce75b0470cb53abec941c0308cc82e27b9ebdc90f4bb24
Requires
--------
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
steinberg-petaluma-fonts
steinberg-petalumascript-fonts
steinberg-petalumatext-fonts
Provides
--------
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all:
steinberg-petaluma-fonts-all
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1918394
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, R,
Java, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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