https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219
Bug ID: 1489219 Summary: Review Request: pop-icon-theme - System76 Pop icon theme for Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: allisson@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/pop-icon-theme/pop-ic... SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/pop-icon-theme/pop-ic... Description: Pop is a free and open source SVG icon theme for Linux, based on Paper Icon Set and Papirus. Fedora Account System Username: allisson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219
Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,
- A git snapshot must include a commidtdate. And if it's a prerelease, the Release tag should start at 0.1
%global commitdate 20170831
And:
Release: 0.1.%{commidate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
Then:
* Wed Sep 6 2017 Allisson Azevedo allisson@gmail.com - 0.1.0-0.1.20170831git38ecdfe
- The License should be: LGPLv3 and CC-BY-SA , as described in both LICENSE.cursors and LICENSE.icons
- This is not needed in %install: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- You should use a simplified Source0, like this:
Source0: https://github.com/system76/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bcommit0%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%...
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2)", "GPL (v3)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)", "Unknown or generated". 25685 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/pop-icon-theme/review-pop- icon-theme/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in pop-icon-theme [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: pop-icon-theme-0.1.0-0.1.20170831git38ecdfe.fc28.noarch.rpm pop-icon-theme-0.1.0-0.1.20170831git38ecdfe.fc28.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219
--- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allisson@gmail.com --- Update:
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/pop-icon-theme/pop-ic... SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/pop-icon-theme/pop-ic...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219
Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) zebob.m@gmail.com --- All good, 📦 accepted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pop-icon-theme
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com