Ah....

1. License:     GPL3 and CC0 and CC-BY-SA and CC-BY and LGPL and LGPL3+

LGPL? LGPLv2?
LGPL3+? LGPLv3+

2. %description
%summary
If a symlink named 'icons', which refers to /boot/grub2/icons is placed 
in your grub2-theme, it will show these icons if it matches -class
 * arch.png
 * debian.png
 * fedora.png
 * gentoo.png
 * gnu-linux.png
 * linuxmint.png
 * opensuse.png
 * osx.png
 * recovery.png
 * sabayon.png
 * slackware.png
 * submenu.png
 * ubuntu.png
 * windows.png

%description
%summary             ???What are these?

3. If you don't want to support EL5(I think no need), remove:

rm -rf 	 %{buildroot}

Whole %clean

%defattr(-,root,root,-) 

4. Better add your email at %changelog

Taken :)

URL:         http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/%{name}
Source0:     http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

This looks like pure nonsense. Where are the icons from? Upstream URL?

So the ./icons/LICENSES is pure nonsense?
Each and every single icons is named by (if info was available):

* Image name
* Author
* upstream (download) url
* authors homepage
* 'license naming'

Does that help?

Okay. This does somewhat run against
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects

but may be acceptable in this specific case.


But the source URL is still nonsense. There's no upstream project, this is a bundle. So leave out the URL and source URL altogether.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Referencing_Source

Sorry i did copy paste the wrong file into the previous 'file update'.. 

SPEC: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons.spec
SRPM: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons-0.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm

Leave Url and source url for the spec, that is, right?
Sorry i'm still new here.

* Thu Sep 05 2013 - sea - 0.0.2-2
- Removed SOURCE and URL from spec,
- as said https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004544#c5
- Re-added SOURCE as package wont build without it
---

SPEC: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons.spec
SRPM: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons-0.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm

(In reply to Simon A. Erat from comment #7)
> Leave Url and source url for the spec, that is, right?
> Sorry i'm still new here.

Yes. Basically you should add a comment that there's no URL since there is no upstream project and this is more of a metapackage.

And the source line should be just
Source0:     %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

with instructions on how to generate the tarball from the separate upstream sources. (You should actually ship a script that generates the tarball.)

Please fix your spec's changelog entries:

Am I correct in assuming "sea" actually should be "sea"?

Yes Ralf, you are. Thank you.

* Fri Sep 06 2013 - Simon A. Erat sea - 0.0.2-3
- Changed SOURCE0 and License-typos
- Added SOURCE1: generate-tarball.sh
- fixed email/name

SPEC: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons.spec
SRPM: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons-0.0.2-3.fc19.src.rpm

404 spec URL.

404 fixed

> sea

Is that a verified address? Or did you mean s/people/project/? I have not seen anyone using a fedorapeople mail alias before.

Well, according to my sponsor, i was told i'd get a new email adress, sea, i could use for such things.
(or i misunderstood that part, but i'm kinda sure he said it'll be redirected)

Additionaly the 'standard ticket mail' seemed kind of supporting this idea.
>kevin <kevin> has sponsored you for membership in the fedorabugs group of the Fedora account system. If applicable, this change should propagate into the e-mail aliases and git repository within an hour.

With all this fancy cool new stuff impacting, excitement growing, one uses things without double check.

Sent a mail to both adresses, about 90minutes earlier, but nothing returned, neither an error, nor any forwared/redirected mail.

However, i got 'it' approved 'this' way..
> http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Approved/vicious/vicious.spec
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004053

So, i just dont know.

Ok just had a talk with sponsor, he'll cleared up my irritation :D
Changed email for next update.

The Summary
 Shows icon of OS next to GRUB2 menuitem

is bad. This is only a package containing menu icons for grub, so the correct summary would be something like
 A collection of operating system menu icons for GRUB2

After 2 months, what's going on here?

Had to replace my computer after hardware failure, and still trying to get 'my system' work as it used to.

I hope to continue in about a month.
Sorry for delays.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

This review request is really old. Do you still intend to complete it? If so, please confirm. If not, please close this issue and make it block FE-DEADREVIEW, or do nothing, in which case automation will close the request in one month.

Specfile and srpm links are dead, fresh ones are needed.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.