Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4079/13684079/numix-0.1.0-5.git101307f.fc23.src.rpm Description: Numix is the official icon theme from the Numix project. It is heavily inspired by, and based upon parts of the Elementary, Humanity and Gnome icon themes Fedora Account System Username: sspreitz http://numixproject.org https://github.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/tree/development
New SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9349/13689349/numix-0.1.0-6.git101307f.fc23.src.rpm rpmlint fixed
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries says: "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." Why do you package sources from three different tarballs, and two different projects (numixproject, shimmerproject)? cd Numix-%{commit2} make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} cd .. ↓ %make_install -C Numix-%{commit2} You can drop the Group tags [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections]. You should use the %license tag for the license file [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text].
Thank your for the feedback/review. After talking to numixproject and shimmerproject we figured out that indeed the Numix Gtk theme belongs to the numixproject. So we decided to move it in Github from the shimmerproject organization to the numixproject organization. https://github.com/numixproject/numix-gtk-theme Will fixup the spec today in the evening (CEST) and will provide new SRPM(s). Also handling the two different tarballs feedback. Thanks!
But this doesn't answer my question fully. Normally it'd be expected to have three separate packages, one for each tarball, so that each of the packages can be built and updated independently. An exception to this would be if (for some reason...) those tarballs are not independent and cannot be used separately. I don't know anything about the numix, so please explain the situation.
In particular, one applicable policy/guideline pertaining to this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." So, there ought to be some compelling reason to do otherwise in this case.
After reading through the fedora wiki i think it makes more sense to split this into three different packages. Before that it was all handled in one spec file for the pure reason of lazyness. Please find the new specs: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-gtk-theme.spec https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-icon-theme.spec https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-icon-theme-circle.spec SRPMs: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/967/13720967/numix-gtk-theme-2.5.1-1.gitbde0a73.fc23.src.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/979/13720979/numix-icon-theme-0.1.0-7.git101307f.fc23.src.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/992/13720992/numix-icon-theme-circle-0.1.0-7.git475d649.fc23.src.rpm
Please separate each review request into a separate bug. Make the title of each bug reflect the package name and summary, e.g. "numix-gtk-theme - Flat GTK theme with light and dark elements". Use %license macro, not %doc, for the license text [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text]. Put BuildRequires on seperate lines (for readability and diffability). I see no Requires tags, is there not relationship between the three packages? %description should end in a dot.
Hi Sascha, please add me as assignee when creating the separate package reviews, I will review them separately. You can use this one for one of the three packages, just rename it accordingly.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1330856 ***
Duplicate of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861