[Bug 515280] Review Request: gnome-colors-icon-theme - GNOME-Colors icon theme

[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=515280


Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |martin.gieseking at uos.de
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de>  2009-08-07 06:54:23 EDT ---
Hello Michal,

your package is pretty clean. The only thing I'm not quite sure about is the
license. The Website mentions GPL v2 but there is no version number given in
README and AUTHORS. Maybe you can ask upstream if GPLv2+ is also applicable.

Martin




rpmlint output:

3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

---------------------------------
keys used in following checklist:

[+] OK
[#] OK, not applicable
[-] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
    - while the website explicitely mentions GPL v2,
      README and AUTHOR doesn't specify a GPL version, COPYING contains 
      GPL v2, though
    - maybe you could ask upstream whether GPLv2 is required or GPLv2+ is 
      also applicable

[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
    - md5 hash is e5b33e067ebfcabafcf8737e2bdb5bcc

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
[#] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
    - no locales

[#] 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.
    - no shared libraries

[#] 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.
    - package not relocatable

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[#] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
    - no large documentation

[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[#] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
    - no header files

[#] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
    - no static libraries

[#] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
    - no pkgconfig

[#] 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.
    - no shared libraries

[#] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
    - no subpackages

[#] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
    - no .la files

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    - builds in mock

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
    - the new icons look nice :)    

[#] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.

-- 
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.