Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 177082
Review Request: wm-icons
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:20 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://www.fedorajim.homelinux.com/rpms/wm-icons/wm-icons.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.fedorajim.homelinux.com/rpms/wm-icons/ Description: The Window Manager Icons is an efficient icon distribution designed to be standardized and configurable. Includes several themed icon sets, scripts and configurations for several window managers.
At this line: "Release : 2.FC4%{?dist}" Remove FC4 line since "%{?dist} already handle the release version (fc3, fc4, fc5). On %doc line, INSTALL can be removed because users will do either rpm and yum install. After making modification on both spec and SRPM, these packages should be accepted for the next step.
Here is a sucessfull build of wm-icons in mock I have included everything mock produced http://www.fedorajim.homelinux.com/rpms/mock-wm-icons-0.3.0-3/
+ mock succesfully build the source RPM - Source0 should list the full path of URL: %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 should be, for example, http://wm-icons.sourceforge.net/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 - Changelog has a typo: " * Fri Jan 06 2006 James Lawrence <fedorajim@gmail.com> 0.4.0-3.FC4 - modified spec file removed FC4 from release line " You mean version 0.3.0-3? - rpmlint generated these errors: W: wm-icons non-standard-group X11/Window Managers W: wm-icons incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-3.FC4 0.3.0-3 E: wm-icons no-binary W: wm-icons symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/icons/wm-icons/menu /usr/share/icons/wm-icons/16x16-general E: wm-icons zero-length /usr/share/icons/wm-icons/16x16-kde/_symlinks.lst W: wm-icons symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/icons/wm-icons/norm /usr/share/icons/wm-icons/48x48-general E: wm-icons standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/icons W: wm-icons devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/wm-icons-config W: wm-icons symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/icons/wm-icons/mini /usr/share/icons/wm-icons/14x14-general Could you make sure to do both md5sum and sha1sum on source tarball for both SRPM and the downloaded tarball you received? These methods are used for security process.
Adding myself to CC list. I might redo this package for use in metisse if there are no objections.
Jim, Are you still interested in this? Ifso it would be nice if you could provide a new SRPM which addresses the issues rased in Comment #3, or are you waiting for a full review before submitting a new version? Shouldn't you respond within one week from now, I'll presume you have lost interest into getting this package into FE and close this PR. Chris, If Jim doesn't respond in a reasonable amount of time feel free to take this one over.
Everyone please reread this bug (and comment), I think (but I'm not sure) we had some progress which got lost due to the BZ crash, Thanks!
This is what I have: ------- Additional Comments From fedorajim@gmail.com 2006-06-10 07:04 EST ------- I havn't had much time recently to much much of anything. If someone is willing to take over then that would be the best deal At which point you closed the bug I think.
I believe so too, if someone else wants to package it its best to start with a fresh new review request, closing as wontfix.