[Bug 566163] Review Request: sugar-logos - Boot splash imagery for Sugar on a Stick

[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=566163

Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |cwickert at fedoraproject.org
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |cwickert at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-20 21:01:12 EST ---
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/sugar-logos-2-1.fc14.*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
687fc657bcb1cf01a2b47093063e2dc5
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all
architectures
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: none
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains permissible content
OK - MUST: no large documentation files for a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described


Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Timestamps match upstream source and are preserved during %install


Issues:

Is this GPLv2 or GPLv2+? I couldn't find any info in the source. You are the
author, please clarify the license and add an AUTHORS file in the next release.

I wonder if "sugar-logos" is the proper name for this package. Usually a
*-logos package contains *all* the branding. Is this already sufficient for
SOAS or are you planning to enhance the source with more graphics so it becomes
a full counterpart to fedora-logos/generic-logos? If so, you need to add
"Provides: system-logos".
IMHO this package should be named "plymouth-theme-sugar" to be in line with the
rest of our packages. Even if you include more icons in the source, you should
package the plymouth theme separately I think.

soas.plymouth contains a hardcoded path with /usr/share/. Fix this upstream.

-- 
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.