https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Bug ID: 2068466 Summary: Review Request: mrsw-biz-udmincho-fonts - Morisawa BIZ UD Mincho fonts, Japanese typeface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tagoh@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mrsw-biz-udmincho-fonts/mrsw-biz-udmi... SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mrsw-biz-udmincho-fonts/mrsw-biz-udmi... Description: <description here>BIZ UD Mincho is a universal design typeface designed to be easy to read and ideal for education and business documentation. It combines high quality in readability and legibility while carrying on the stately Japanese Mincho type tradition. BIZ UD Mincho bases its design on one of the typefaces from the Morisawa font library, which has thicker horizontal lines than the traditional Mincho type style. Because most Mincho types have thin horizontal strokes, the style can be difficult to read on some displays or signs and for people with low vision. For the universal design version, dakuten (゛) and handakuten (゜) voicing marks are designed to be more legible, and the letterforms are adjusted to maintain their balance while having a larger face and wider counters.
Fedora Account System Username: tagoh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
--- Comment #1 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Updated: Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mrsw-biz-udmincho-fonts/mrsw-biz-udmi... SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mrsw-biz-udmincho-fonts/mrsw-biz-udmi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |panemade@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Update to 1.005
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|panemade@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(panemade@gmail.co | |m) |
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com's needinfo: Bug 2068466: Review Request: mrsw-biz-udmincho-fonts - Morisawa BIZ UD Mincho fonts, Japanese typeface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com) CC| |luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net
--- Comment #4 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Update to 1.06 https://github.com/googlefonts/morisawa-biz-ud-mincho/releases Switch license to SPDX format i.e OFL -> OFL-1.1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #5 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Updated.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tagoh/mrsw-biz-udmincho-f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tagoh/mrsw-biz-udmincho-f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6769377 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
--- Comment #7 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Updated.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tagoh/mrsw-biz-udmincho-f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tagoh/mrsw-biz-udmincho-f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2005134 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2005134&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6769377 to 6773479
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6773479 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. (consider %autochangelog) [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 26064 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net
--- Comment #11 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Based on the review, this package is now approved for packaging in the main repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mrsw-biz-udmincho-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068466
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-12 11:45:29
--- Comment #13 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- The package has been built in koji. Thank you for your help!
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111652880
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org