[Bug 453412] Review Request: gtk-aurora-engine - Aurora theme engine for gtk2

[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=453412


John Anderson <john.e.anderson at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(tuomas.mursu at kaps
                   |                            |i.fi)




--- Comment #5 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson at gmail.com>  2008-11-10 11:46:07 EDT ---

Looking pretty good, a few things:

1) You can safely remove the "Requires: gtk2", gtk2-devel should take care of
that
2) I looked at the names of other gtk engine packages, and they all followed
the format gtk-engine-name I think gtk-engine-aurora would be a better fit
3) I see a minor ownership problem for %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0, see below
4) I would consider putting the themes in a subpackage

Please remember to increment the version and update the changelog

NEEDSWORK for now.

MUST Items:

OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
FIX - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
The rest of the gtk engines in Fedora follow the format gtk-engine-name, I
would stick with that and change to gtk-engine-aurora
OK - MUST: The spec file named in the format %{name}.spec
OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Ok - MUST: License text included in doc
OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK - 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.
95e8dab631202504d27eb9925f13317f
OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
OK - MUST: Builds on all archs
OK - MUST: All build dependencies listed
OK - MUST: No locales
OK - MUST: No ldconfig needed
OK - MUST: Not relocated
OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK - MUST: No large docs
OK - 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.
OK - MUST: No headers
OK - MUST: No static libraries
OK - MUST: No pkgconfig
OK - MUST: No library files with a suffix
OK - MUST: N/A no devel for devel name
OK - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
OK - MUST: Not a GUI app, no .desktop needed
FIX - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
package owns /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0 and /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines
In files I'd make this change %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0/*/engines/*
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for
details.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:

OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Theme works well

-- 
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.