Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 168635
Review Request: colorscheme: generate a variety of colorschemes from a single starting color
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:13 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/colorscheme.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/colorscheme-0.2.1-1.src.rpm
Have you ever been re-finishing a room in your home and found yourself asking
"What color would go well with this" ? Or been working on a website and not
able to find the perfect colorscheme to go with the company logo ?
Try GNOME Colorscheme. GNOME Colorscheme is a very simple application for the
GNOME desktop that allows you to generate a variety of colorschemes from a
single starting color.
But see Notes.
* Package name follows namng guidelines.
* spec is named after the package name.
* License is GPL, matches the spec name, and is included in the package.
* Spec file is legible
* Builds on x86_64.
* No ExcludeArchs yet.
* No excluded BuildRequires.
* Builds in mock
* Matches upstream source
* Owns all directories
* No duplicate files
* Permissions set correctly
* Has %clean section
* Makes good use of macros
* Code not content
* Properly contains a .desktop file.
* rpmlint gives:
W: colorscheme wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
This could be fixed with dos2unix, ignored, or the TODO file could be left
out of the distribution. It isn't terribly useful.
* colorscheme has its own unittests. These are enabled by buildrequiring
cppunit-devel and running make check in the %check section. I tried to
run the tests on the current package and found that quite a few of them
failed. If this isn't known, you might want to run the tests and submit
a bug upstream.
* I don't believe there's a lot of value in including the .sig. A reviewer
still has to go to the project website to verify the origin of the .sig and
(most of the time) that the key seems to belong to the upstream author.
The .sig should be checked by the reviewer but not included in the finished
package. If you have/know of another view, feel free to share.
I've added a "make check || :" in the rpm, and reported the failed tests upstream.
Agreed, if the sig is not signed by people you trust, it's as valuable as an
I'll import the package with these modifications.