https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated

--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL: https://hedayat.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vazirmatn-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7218/86607218/vazirmatn-fonts... Description: Vazirmatn is a Persian/Arabic font project that started in 2015 under the name of Vazir with the idea of a new simple and legible typeface suitable for web pages and applications. Thanks to DejaVu Sans font (v2.35) published in public domain there was a free software base to start the Vazir project. Although Vazir was completely different in typeface, still the original software was common. For Latin glyphs, Vazirmatn is combined with Roboto font by a build script, however there is also a version without Latin glyphs (Non-Latin).

Fedora Account System Username: hedayat

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=86607311

Wiki Page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vazirmatn_fonts

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated

--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL: https://hedayat.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vazirmatn-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8174/86808174/vazirmatn-fonts... Description: Vazirmatn is a Persian/Arabic font project that started in 2015 under the name of Vazir with the idea of a new simple and legible typeface suitable for web pages and applications. Thanks to DejaVu Sans font (v2.35) published in public domain there was a free software base to start the Vazir project. Although Vazir was completely different in typeface, still the original software was common. For Latin glyphs, Vazirmatn is combined with Roboto font by a build script, however there is also a version without Latin glyphs (Non-Latin).

Fedora Account System Username: hedayat

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=86808099

Wiki Page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vazirmatn_fonts

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- I wanted to review but not getting time. The more complex/subpackages in SPEC, more it will take time to review. Can you first try to remove comments from SPEC file and submit again same package?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #4 from Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com --- Yes, sure. And thank you for reviewing my package :)

Just a quick question (part of the above emails): should I package variable version of the fonts separately from the normal ones? I've seen that at least some fonts, e.g. the Noto fonts, have separate package for variable fonts (-vf subpackages), but I don't know if I should do the same (by definition, seems that all of them belong to a single family). If I can/should put them in a separate subpackage, what should their fontconfig file contain? For Noto (Arabic) fonts, I saw the variable fonts have 'have hints' (not the exact word) set to true while non-variable version has set it to false. I wonder if the same thing is correct for all variable fonts or it is just specific to Noto fonts?

Thanks again, I'll upload a new version in a few hours.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #6 from Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com --- Thanks a lot, so I"ll create separate sub-packages for variable fonts. However, you said that variable fonts should have "fonthashint" property set to false. But, for Noto Arabic fonts, it is the other way around: VF fonts have set fonthashint property set to true while Non-VF fonts have set it to false. This is from 56-google-noto-sans-arabic-vf.conf:

<edit name="fonthashint" mode="append"> <bool>true</bool> </edit>

Which one is correct?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #8 from Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com --- So, If I've understood correctly, there is no global rule about fonthashint property and VF/NON-VF fonts. In that case, should I share the same fontconfig config file between VF & non-VF packages without specifying any extra properties like fonthashint? (Since I have no clue if the fonts need such properties)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #10 from Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com --- OK, I've uploaded new SPEC and SRPM. Now, variable fonts are packaged separately, and most comments are removed. Family names are also fixed.

SPEC: https://hedayat.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vazirmatn-fonts.spec SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7001/87267001/vazirmatn-fonts... Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87266999

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #12 from Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com --- OK, sure:

SPEC: https://hedayat.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vazirmatn-fonts.spec SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8548/87278548/vazirmatn-fonts... Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87278537

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #14 from Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com --- Thanks for the notes. I'll try to upload a new version soon.

About the description, I agree with you. I actually decided to go with the author's description; but you are correct and I'll update it.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl ---

This meta-package installs all the font packages, generated from the

Please drop the comma.

===== 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. OFL

[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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 316 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2081539-vazirmatn- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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 614400 bytes in 36 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]: 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]: 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. [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]: 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.

rpmlint: checks: 32, packages: 14 vazirmatn-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation

Package is APPROVED.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

--- Comment #18 from Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com ---

Looks like both upstream fedora-rpm-macros and corresponding package in Fedora.

Oops, "Looks like both upstream fedora-rpm-macros and the corresponding package in Fedora need some love".

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

Hedayat Vatankhah hedayatv@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-06-04 11:00:12