On 15-08-2025 19:48, Phil Wyett wrote:
Control: tags -1 +moreinfo
I am not a Debian Developer (DD) (and can never be, you could say I have been
DAM'ed) and have no ability to upload your package, sorry. This review is for
your information with no requirement to act upon it.
Aryan,
Review of upload: 2025-08-15 09:12
Test 1 (reproducibility): Information only, not a blocker
* Good
Test 2 (pbuilder build): Information only
* Good
Test 3 (pbuilder build --twice): Information only
* Good
Test 4 (sbuild): Information only
Lintian:
I: python-fontfeatures source: built-using-field-on-arch-all-package (in section
for python-fontfeatures-doc) Built-Using ${sphinxdoc:Built-Using}
[debian/control:49]
N:
N: The stanza for an installation package in debian/control declares a
N: Built-Using field even though the package is declared as Architecture:
N: all. That is incorrect.
N:
N: The Built-Using field is only used architecture-specific packages. Please
N: remove the Built-Using field from the indicated location.
N:
N: Visibility: info
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: debian/control/field/built-using
N:
N:
I: python-fontfeatures source: patch-not-forwarded-upstream
[debian/patches/Unify-script-shebangs.patch]
N:
N: According to the DEP-3 headers, this patch has not been forwarded
N: upstream.
N:
N: Please forward the patch and try to have it included in upstream's version
N: control system. If the patch is not suitable for that, please mention
N: not-needed in the Forwarded field of the patch header.
N:
N: Please refer to social contract item 2, Coordination with upstream
N: developers (Section 3.1.4) in the Debian Developer's Reference, Changes to
N: the upstream sources (Section 4.3) in the Debian Policy Manual, and
N: Bug#755153 for details.
N:
N: Visibility: info
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: debian/patches/dep3
N: Renamed from: send-patch
N:
N:
I: python-fontfeatures-doc: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
N:
N: The package ships a .html or .pdf file under /usr/share/doc/. Those files
N: are usually documentation, but no files are registered in doc-base.
N:
N: Files in folders named examples are exempt from this tag.
N:
N: Please refer to Registering Documents using doc-base (Section 9.10) in the
N: Debian Policy Manual for details.
N:
N: Visibility: info
N: Show-Always: no
N: Check: menus
Test 5 (ratt): Information only, not a blocker
Note: Possible false positives.
2025/08/15 14:52:30 Build results:
2025/08/15 14:52:30 PASSED: fonts-jetbrains-mono
2025/08/15 14:52:30 PASSED: gftools
2025/08/15 14:52:30 PASSED: fonts-montserrat
2025/08/15 14:52:30 PASSED: fonts-firacode
2025/08/15 14:52:30 PASSED: fonts-manrope
2025/08/15 14:52:30 PASSED: fonts-cascadia-code
2025/08/15 14:52:30 FAILED: fonts-sora (see buildlogs/fonts-
sora_0+git20201221+ds-4)
Test 6 (debian/watch): Information only
* Good
Test 7 (licenserecon): Information only
* Good
Summary
=======
A few things you may wish to look at.
* Could you ask upstream to update the years in their LICENSE file. This affects
what is being put in 'debian/copyright'.
Tagging as 'moreinfo'.
Tags
====
If a 'moreinfo' tag has been added to your RFS bug. You can remove the tag using
the line below at the top of a reply that is supplying information and/or
indicating a new upload.
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo
Regards
Phil
Hi,Thanks for the review. This package is already in debian including the latest upstream version and im adopting it. I'll have a word with the person who was maintaining it before me about that failing fonts package.
I'll also send a fix upstream for that LICENSE file. -- Regards, Aryan Karamtoth Matrix: @SpaciousCoder78:matrix.org XMPP: SpaciousCoder78@xmpp.earth GPG Fingerprint: 7A7D 9308 2BD1 9BAF A83B 7E34 FE90 07B8 ED64 0421
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xFE9007B8ED640421.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature