Bug 566163

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.

(In reply to comment #1)

Thanks for taking on this one! ;)

> 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.

Well, http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-logos/repos/mainline/blobs/master/COPYING says that "the images in sugar-logos are licensed as GPLv2+." but I guess that could be improved, indeed.

I'll add an AUTHORS file for the next release (which should happen soon anyway, as we need some new stuff for v3).

> 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.

I was thinking about this, too. This package is currently not a full counter-part to fedora-logos and such. However, it might contain additional images and related stuff in the future.

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/fedora-logos/fedora-logos.spec?view=markup also contains the plymouth images which is why I originally went with this naming.

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

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/plymouth/charge.plymouth?view=markup does the same thing (which admittedly isn't exactly an argument for doing it, though) - the files it links to will always live in that path.

Ok, I suggest to stick with the name sugar-logos, at least for now. Once the package contains more images than just the plymouth screen, you couls/should split it. The srpm remains sugar-logos.

Don't forget to add a "Provides: system-logos" once this becomes a full logo package and conflicts with the others.

APPROVED.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: sugar-logos
Short Description: Boot splash imagery for Sugar on a Stick
Owners: sdz
Branches: F-13

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

sugar-logos-2-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-logos-2-1.fc13

sugar-logos-2-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.