[Bug 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode fonts

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483865


Charles R. Anderson <cra at wpi.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cra at wpi.edu




--- Comment #1 from Charles R. Anderson <cra at wpi.edu>  2009-02-03 21:57:13 EDT ---
Initial review:

>rpmlint bpg-fonts-20090203-1.fc11.src.rpm
bpg-fonts.src: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Upstream source sha1sum matches:

fb996423afac1f8a1091d907795115f98249cd7f  BPG_GPL&GNU_Fonts.zip

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy
+ Fonts are in a single upstream archive.
? Multiple different families are in the same upstream archive.  They share a
release date, but the subpackages have different Versions.  Additionally, as
stated above, one of the font families has a different license.  Can you check
with upstream about splitting these into one-archive-per-family?  It would
probably be better to split at least the one non-GPL font into a different
archive, and probably a different SRPM altogether.
+ Each family is in a separate subpackage.
+ naming follows projectname-fontfamilyname-fonts
- SHOULD be built from sources, but font spec template says "For GPLed or
LGPLed fonts this is required by the license."  %build section is empty.  Is
TTF the preferred source for modifying/building these fonts?  If not, where is
the source?

>rpmlint bpg-*.noarch.rpm
bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-algeti.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-algeti.conf
bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-chveulebrivi.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-chveulebrivi.conf
bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-courier.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-courier.conf
bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-courier-s.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-courier-s.conf
bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-elite.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-elite.conf
bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-fonts-common.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-glaho.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-glaho.conf
bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-ingiri.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-ingiri.conf
bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium-cond.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium-cond.conf
bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium.conf
bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans.conf
bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-medium.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-medium.conf
bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-sans-modern-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-sans-modern-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-modern.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-modern.conf
bpg-sans-regular-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-sans-regular-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-regular.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-regular.conf
bpg-sans-regular-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-serif-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-serif-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-serif.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-serif.conf
bpg-serif-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
bpg-serif-modern-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
bpg-serif-modern-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-serif-modern.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-serif-modern.conf
bpg-serif-modern-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions
16 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 45 warnings.

Should the symlinks be relative, or is rpmlint being too pedantic here?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.