Bug 177082 - Review Request: wm-icons
Summary: Review Request: wm-icons
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Luya Tshimbalanga
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-01-06 02:18 UTC by jim
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-06-14 07:10:56 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description jim 2006-01-06 02:18:09 UTC
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.

Comment 1 Luya Tshimbalanga 2006-01-06 19:40:05 UTC
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.

Comment 2 jim 2006-01-13 01:17:25 UTC
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/

Comment 3 Luya Tshimbalanga 2006-01-25 18:10:25 UTC
+ 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> 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.

Comment 4 Christopher Stone 2006-06-07 00:11:31 UTC
Adding myself to CC list.  I might redo this package for use in metisse if there
are no objections.

Comment 5 Hans de Goede 2006-06-08 08:16:20 UTC
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.


Comment 6 Hans de Goede 2006-06-14 06:54:31 UTC
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!


Comment 7 Christopher Stone 2006-06-14 07:02:18 UTC
This is what I have:

------- Additional Comments From fedorajim  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.

Comment 8 Hans de Goede 2006-06-14 07:10:56 UTC
I believe so too, if someone else wants to package it its best to start with a
fresh new review request, closing as wontfix.



Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.