Bug 515280 (gnome-colors)

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1576200

newman@dhcp-lab-124 SPECS $ rpmlint /home/newman/rpmbuild/SRPMS/gnome-colors-icon-theme-5.2.2-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Builds in mock without any problems and rpmlint warnings.

One problem I see is that the icon themes inherit the gnome icon them, therefore you should probably add a Requires: gnome-icon-theme.

Thanks.

Fixed and also updated to v5.3: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/gnome-colors-icon-theme/gnome-colors-icon-theme-5.3-1.fc11.src.rpm

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.

Concerning the scriptlet check, the last list item should be:

[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
    - %post scriptlet is valid and sane

(In reply to comment #4)
> 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.

The first priority is the source code. In this case:

$ grep -i license * -R

gives a bunch of
gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg:        <cc:license
gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg:           rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/" />
gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg:      <cc:License
gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg:         rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/">
gnome-colors-common/scalable/devices/gnome-dev-symlink.svg:      </cc:License>

so the license is clearly GPLv2.

I actually did a grep on the source. 

Can a part of an URI that points to a document really be considered clear? I mean, the link leads to the standard GPL v2 license text that is also included in the tarball. Without further explicit mentioning of the version number I would say that GPLv2+ could also be valid.

Judging only from the COPYING we'd mark the package as GPL+, but due to the license entries I would consider it quite clear that it's GPLv2.

(The website is circumstantial evidence.)

Of course, you can ask FE-LEGAL for confirmation if you want to be really sure. Or even better - ask upstream to add clear license headers to the source files and a note in e.g. COPYING stating that the package is distributed under GPLv2 (only).

Jussi, thanks for your comment. I was just wondering how the URI would have looked like if GPLv2+ was intended. However, I don't insist of a complete verification, of course. If you say GPLv2 is fine, then we can go with it.

Nonetheless, Michal already sent an email to upstream asking for clarification.

OK, I just received the email from Victor Castillejo confirming that GPLv2 is correct. Sorry for having been a bit nit-picking. Since everything else looks fine, I can finish the review here.

So, this package is APPROVED.

Thanks for the review, Martin!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: gnome-colors-icon-theme
Short Description: GNOME-Colors icon theme
Owners: mnowak
Branches: F-11

cvs done.

gnome-colors-icon-theme-5.3-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-colors-icon-theme-5.3-1.fc11

gnome-colors-icon-theme-5.3-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnome-colors-icon-theme'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8458

gnome-colors-icon-theme-5.3-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Does anyone of you guys know, why was this package deprecated? I'm using this icon theme and I keep it in /usr/local - I would take the ownership, unless there is something that smells bad. I was unable to find any relevant reason in git, in %changelog or on wiki.

According to [1], the package was orphaned (and retired?) in November 2011. Since nobody picked it up, it's no longer available in the Fedora repos. 
However, I don't see a reason why you shouldn't reactivate it. It's a nice collection of icon themes that works perfectly together with Xfce and Cinnamon for example. If you'd like to take ownership, feel free to do so.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/160063.html

Thanks, the new Review Request is bz1003009

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1003009 ***