Bug 1411152

Summary: Review Request: mint-x-icons - Icon theme for Linux Mint
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Björn 'besser82' Esser <besser82>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Christian Dersch <lupinix.fedora>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: lupinix.fedora, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: lupinix.fedora: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-01-17 19:52:23 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1411151    

Description Björn 'besser82' Esser 2017-01-08 20:56:28 UTC
Description:

  Icon theme for Linux Mint.


Koji Build:

  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17215176


Issues:

   No issues spotted, but a few `W: dangling-relative-symlink`.
   Reported upstream:  https://github.com/linuxmint/mint-x-icons/issues/161


FAS-User:

  besser82


Urls:

  Spec URL:  https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/mint-x-icons.spec
  SRPM URL:  https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/mint-x-icons-1.4.0-0.1.fc26.src.rpm


Thanks for review in advance!

Comment 1 Christian Dersch 2017-01-08 21:18:06 UTC
Taken

Comment 2 Christian Dersch 2017-01-08 21:25:49 UTC
Approved, looks fine!

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- 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 is included in %license.
  Note: License file gnome-mime-text-x-copying.png is not marked as
  %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

===> False positive, is an icon for licenses :P


===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/review/1411152-mint-x-icons/licensecheck.txt
[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 mint-x-icons
[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 20480 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
=> is noarch

[-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mint-x-icons-1.4.0-0.1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          mint-x-icons-1.4.0-0.1.fc26.src.rpm
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/scalable/keepassx2.svg keepassx.svg
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/16/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/48/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/22/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/24/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/96/kopete.svg pidgin.svg
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/32/kopete.png pidgin.png
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/16/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/22/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/24/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/32/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/48/kopete.png pidgin.png
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/96/kopete.svg pidgin.svg
mint-x-icons.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Mint-X/apps/scalable/keepassx2.svg keepassx.svg
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
mint-x-icons (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    filesystem



Provides
--------
mint-x-icons:
    mint-x-icons



Source checksums
----------------
http://packages.linuxmint.com/pool/main/m/mint-x-icons/mint-x-icons_1.4.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 970ccf67b5b120e23956f05029e52b1810f96d874a1cac1a9841f38ed4827c5e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 970ccf67b5b120e23956f05029e52b1810f96d874a1cac1a9841f38ed4827c5e


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1411152
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-01-09 14:16:59 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mint-x-icons

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2017-01-09 20:45:13 UTC
mint-y-icons-1.0.4-1.fc25 mint-x-icons-1.4.0-1.fc25 cinnamon-themes-2016.12.07-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-84045eb11e

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2017-01-09 20:45:29 UTC
mint-y-icons-1.0.4-1.fc24 mint-x-icons-1.4.0-1.fc24 cinnamon-themes-2016.12.07-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6d917d7d85

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-01-10 03:24:04 UTC
cinnamon-themes-2016.12.07-1.fc24, mint-x-icons-1.4.0-1.fc24, mint-y-icons-1.0.4-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6d917d7d85

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-01-10 03:28:41 UTC
cinnamon-themes-2016.12.07-1.fc25, mint-x-icons-1.4.0-1.fc25, mint-y-icons-1.0.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-84045eb11e

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-01-17 19:52:23 UTC
cinnamon-themes-2016.12.07-1.fc25, mint-x-icons-1.4.0-1.fc25, mint-y-icons-1.0.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2017-01-17 20:20:44 UTC
cinnamon-themes-2016.12.07-1.fc24, mint-x-icons-1.4.0-1.fc24, mint-y-icons-1.0.4-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.