https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Bug ID: 1822847 Summary: Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts 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/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20141... Description: VLGothic provides Japanese TrueType fonts from the Vine Linux project. Most of the glyphs are taken from the M+ and Sazanami Gothic fonts, but some have also been improved by the project.
Fedora Account System Username: tagoh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org
--- Comment #1 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- This is rename of vlgothic-fonts.
Re-review is needed for package renaming according to the new fonts packaging guidelines.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- Quick review:
1. obligatory rpmlint check:
vl-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace vl-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/vl-gothic-fonts/README.sazanami vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace vl-gothic-fonts.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE3} vl-gothic-fonts.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE4} vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{name}-1331050.patch vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{name}-p-1331050.patch vl-gothic-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation vl-pgothic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace vl-pgothic-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/vl-pgothic-fonts/README.sazanami
Please remove the commented lines and fix the readmes using %linuxtext or another method. For the patch part, rpmlint is mistaken, do as you wish
2. font installation check:
$ fc-scan -f "%{family[0]};%{style[0]};%{fullname[0]};%{width};%{weight};%{slant};%{fontversion};%{file}\n" /usr/share/fonts/vl*fonts |sort -t ';' -k1,1d -k4,4n -k5,5n -k6,6n -k2,2d -k7,7dr | uniq | column --separator ';' -t VL Gothic regular VL Gothic 100 80 0 138936 /usr/share/fonts/vl-gothic-fonts/VL-Gothic-Regular.ttf VL PGothic regular VL PGothic 100 80 0 138936 /usr/share/fonts/vl-pgothic-fonts/VL-PGothic-Regular.ttf
The regular (minuscule) is certainly unusual and may trip some applications
3. spec comparison against official Fedora templates OK (lots of dead commented lines that should be removed)
4. since we only ship OpenType font families nowadays, maybe it is not useful to remind the font family format in Summary and description
5. You have some mixed tab/space indenting in the spec
Otherwise, looks good, thanks for the conversion
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- Hi Petr,
Do you mean anything particular in changing the assignation of this issue, or is it a side-effect of the tool you use to add yourself in CC?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- A review has a life cycle. When someone stars reviewing a package, he should assign the bug to himself, change the status to assigned and set fedora-review flag to "?". Once a package is approved, the bug report keeps assigned to the reviewer and when the submitter builds the package, the submitter closed the bug or attaches is it to a Bodhi updates so that the bug report gets closed.
Recently, a review status listing https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ for updated to reflect and enforce the review life cycle. So I'm going through a list of reviews in an inconsistent state and correcting them. My change in the review was exactly one of the corrections. Nothing particular against this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- This review cycle does not reflect reality.
When the review is done as fedora-review+, the rest of the work is requester-side, not reviewer-side When the review is done as fedora-review-, again the fixing work is requester-side, not reviewer-side
Practically, unless the requester is available to act on the review result at once, no reviewer is going to commit following the result of the review months if not years later (yes some of those are *that* old).
Thus, the only state during which it is correct to assign stuff on the reviewer, is when the reviewer has taken the review but not finished it yet (fedora-review?). The rest of the time the only person that can make things move forward is the requester.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #6 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Sorry, my bad. while there was some trouble in macros, I missed opportunities to get this package into the repo. I'm revisiting this again for Bug#1858617 and updating the spec and srpm. also confirmed it is buildable on rawhide now.
It doesn't make too much changes but would be appreciated if anyone can re-review it. thanks.
Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20200...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net's needinfo: Bug 1822847: Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #8 from Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.
The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #9 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20220...
Updated spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #10 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20220...
Updated spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- When running fedora-review, get the following:
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.1 starting (python version = 3.10.6, NVR = mock-3.1-1.fc 36)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init 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: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-1.fc38.noarch.r pm /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M cfe323d52a7142cf973407c55fd15f1c -D /var/lib/mo ck/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp /mock-resolv.w_8ssvea:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --sete nv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/instal lation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbi n --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-c hroot> \s-\v$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf =off /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --rele asever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disable plugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts- 20220612-1.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-1.fc38.noarch. rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org