Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/papirus-libreoffice-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/papirus-libreoffice-theme-20170228-1.fc30.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30015376 Description: Papirus theme for LibreOffice. It is available in three variants: - ePapirus - Papirus - Papirus Dark Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
If we consider this a LibreOffice extension, shouldn't it be named libreoffice-theme-papirus instead? Or something along these lines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#LibreOffice_extensions I particularly like the name chosen in openSUSE: libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus
All right. Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc30.src.rpm
Due to the name change, now the %{name} in Source0 should be papirus-libreoffice-theme instead, to match the repository.
Mmmh, still erroring: Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.muewlr + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228 + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/papirus-libreoffice-theme-20170228.tar.gz + /usr/bin/tar -xof - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228 BUILDSTDERR: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.muewlr: line 40: cd: libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228: No such file or directory It seems that %autosetup uses %{name}-%{version} by default. Instead, %autosetup -n papirus-libreoffice-theme-%{version} should work. At this point, maybe it's worth it to define a global with the upstream name?
Ha yes I forgot about that, should be fixed now: Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc30.src.rpm
Everything seems ok except for a complaint about the usage of %{_libdir} in a noarch package. I see that the Makefile installs the contents there. Why is this? Can't LibreOffice locate the icon theme under %{_datadir}? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/libreoffice (libreoffice-core), /usr/lib64/libreoffice/share/config(libreoffice- core), /usr/lib64/libreoffice/share(libreoffice-core) [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]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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). [?]: 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. [-]: %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: libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc28.noarch.rpm libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc28.src.rpm libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePapirus -> Epicurus libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePapirus -> Epicurus libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.src:39: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %dir %{_libdir}/libreoffice libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.src:40: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %dir %{_libdir}/libreoffice/share libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.src:41: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %dir %{_libdir}/libreoffice/share/config libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.src:42: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/libreoffice/share/config/images_*.zip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePapirus -> Epicurus libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/PapirusDevelopmentTeam/papirus-libreoffice-theme <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus: libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/PapirusDevelopmentTeam/papirus-libreoffice-theme/archive/20170228/papirus-libreoffice-theme-20170228.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 396402c9327506a729d3c01e339528dd5b5f9b205cb3edabca4eb85b5db5df6d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 396402c9327506a729d3c01e339528dd5b5f9b205cb3edabca4eb85b5db5df6d Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1635368 Buildroot used: fedora-28-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
> Why is this? Can't LibreOffice locate the icon theme under %{_datadir}? That's where LO install its icon theme. You can check on your system, there are already some there.
I see. Ok, approved!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7c047bd2f2
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-57f70c6e22
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4e3a0440f1
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-4e3a0440f1
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-7c047bd2f2
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-57f70c6e22
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libreoffice-icon-theme-papirus-20170228-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.