[Bug 928841] New: Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Bug ID: 928841
           Summary: Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful,
                    yet simple, HTML5 starting theme
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],
                    [e-mail]

Spec URL:
http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal7-theme-zen.spec

SRPM URL:
http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18...

Description:
Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme with a responsive,
mobile-first grid design. If you are building your own standards-compliant
theme, you will find it much easier to start with Zen than to start with
Garland or Stark. This theme has fantastic online documentation
(http://drupal.org/node/193318) and tons of helpful code comments
in its' PHP, HTML, CSS and Sass.

Fedora Account System Username: siwinski

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
*** Bug 928842 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Jared Smith  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
I can't do a formal review on this package, as it depends on drupal7-rpmbuild,
which hasn't yet been made part of the Fedora repositories.  I'd be happy to
review drupal7-rpmbuild if it's ready for a package review -- just let me know
the bug number.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
Hi Jared -- drupal7-rpmbuild is a sub-package of drupal7 >= 7.21-2

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Jared Smith  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Jared Smith  ---
Ah, I hadn't noticed that.  I'll start my review now.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Jared Smith  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(shawn.iwinski@gma
                   |                            |il.com)

--- Comment #5 from Jared Smith  ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.

[jsmith@hockey zen]$ rpmlint drupal7-theme-zen.spec
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
/home/jsmith/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 
drupal7-theme-zen.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/drupal7/themes/zen/STARTERKIT/sass-extensions/zen-grids/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Notice that the error is about the incorrect address for the FSF in the license
file -- you should work with upstream to get that fixed.

[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.

[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.

[ BAD ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

I noticed that zen/js/html5.js and zen/js/html5-respond.js are licensed as both
MIT and GPLv2, but the spec file only lists the GPL license

[ O K ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.

[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[ O K ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

[jsmith@hockey zen]$ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz ; curl -s -o
- http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz | md5sum -
05dfedea459f99b8fdeaee06e8714749 
/home/jsmith/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz
05dfedea459f99b8fdeaee06e8714749  -

[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.

[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.

[ O K ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.

[ O K ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory.

[ O K ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)

[ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.

[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.

[ O K ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).

[ O K ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.

[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.

[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}

[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.

[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged
GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
spec file with your explanation.

[ N/A ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.

[ O K ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[ N/A ] SHOULD: 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  ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ O K ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ O K ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[ O K ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

I'm going to hold off approving the package until you've had a chance to look
at the license in those two javascript files I mentioned.

Also, I was wondering if there was any precedence for putting the word "theme"
in the package name.  The other Drupal modules simply have the name of the
project -- basically the part after drupal.org/project/ in the module URL.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> [ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
> posted
> in the review.
>
> [jsmith@hockey zen]$ rpmlint drupal7-theme-zen.spec
> drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
> /home/jsmith/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 
> drupal7-theme-zen.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/drupal7/themes/zen/STARTERKIT/sass-extensions/zen-grids/LICENSE.
> txt
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
>
> Notice that the error is about the incorrect address for the FSF in the
> license file -- you should work with upstream to get that fixed.

The license files are added to the downloads by the Drupal build process. 
Project owners do not add these themselves.  The only way for the project
owners to fix this is to push out a new version/release.  For this rpmlint
"error" packagers usually only need to notify upstream of the "issue". 
However, we could fix this 2 ways:
1) Include a separate LICENSE.txt file as an RPM source
2) Wait until version 5.2 is released by upstream (this would cause the Drupal
build process to add the new license)
> [ BAD ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
> actual
> license.
>
> I noticed that zen/js/html5.js and zen/js/html5-respond.js are licensed as
> both MIT and GPLv2, but the spec file only lists the GPL license

Good catch!!!  Question: Do you know if license files for each need to be
included?
> Also, I was wondering if there was any precedence for putting the word
> "theme" in the package name.  The other Drupal modules simply have the name
> of the project -- basically the part after drupal.org/project/ in the module
> URL.

I was just following the naming convention of "drupal7-theme-adaptivetheme" and
"drupal7-theme-ninesixty" (the only other themes I know about in the repo). 
However, I would much prefer taking "theme" out of the package name!  All
Drupal machine names are guaranteed to be unique and modules and themes both
share the same machine name namespace.  I wish there was a "drupal-devel"
mailing list to ask ;)  Perhaps for this drupal7 theme we could stick with the
drupal7-theme-zen pkg name to conform but also virtually provide drupal7-zen
and then update the drupal8 packaging guidelines to specifically call out
removing the "theme" part of the name?

I will clear the needinfo flag when I fix the license issue.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #7 from Jared Smith  ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The license files are added to the downloads by the Drupal build process. 
> Project owners do not add these themselves.  The only way for the project
> owners to fix this is to push out a new version/release.

That's fine -- I'm willing to let it go for now, as long as upstream knows
about the issue and will address it in a future release.  It's not a critical
issue, but something that should be addressed.
> > [ BAD ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
> > actual
> > license.
> >
> > I noticed that zen/js/html5.js and zen/js/html5-respond.js are licensed as
> > both MIT and GPLv2, but the spec file only lists the GPL license
>
> Good catch!!!  Question: Do you know if license files for each need to be
> included?

I wouldn't worry about including a license file for a one-file Javascript
library.  (And, just for the sake of completeness -- I don't think we need to
package these two javascript libraries separately, at least until the
Javascript packaging guidelines are ratified by the FPC.)

I'd just make sure that the license line in the .spec file mentions the other
licenses, and maybe even put a comment in there that the theme itself is GPL,
but the two Javascript libraries are dual-licensed.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Shawn Iwinski  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(shawn.iwinski@gma |
                   |il.com)                     |

--- Comment #8 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
Updated spec license and added upstream issue for license FSF issue (both noted
as comments in the spec).

Spec URL:
http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal7-theme-zen.spec

SRPM URL:
http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-2.fc18...

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #9 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is approved.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Jared Smith  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Shawn Iwinski  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #10 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
THANKS for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: drupal7-theme-zen
Short Description: A powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme
Owners: siwinski asrob
Branches: f17 f18 f19 el5 el6
InitialCC:

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-cvs?                 |
              Flags|                            |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el5

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc17

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc19

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ON_QA

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing
repository.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc1
                   |                            |8
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2013-05-15 13:28:44

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing
repository.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable
repository.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc1 |drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc1
                   |8                           |7

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc1 |drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6
                   |7                           |

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 |drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el5

--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable
repository.

[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841

Peter Borsa  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #23 from Peter Borsa  ---
*** Bug 1103453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***