Bug 2184636 - Review Request: adw-gtk3-theme - The theme from libadwaita ported to GTK-3
Summary: Review Request: adw-gtk3-theme - The theme from libadwaita ported to GTK-3
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Felix Wang
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/lassekongo83/adw-gtk3
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-04-05 09:52 UTC by Pavel Solovev
Modified: 2023-04-16 17:40 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-04-16 17:40:04 UTC
Type: ---
topazus: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Pavel Solovev 2023-04-05 09:52:57 UTC
Spec URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/adw-gtk3-theme.spec
SRPM URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/adw-gtk3-theme-4.5-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: The theme from libadwaita ported to GTK-3
Fedora Account System Username: solopasha

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-05 10:15:44 UTC
Copr build:

Review template:

Please take a look if any issues were found.

This comment was created by the fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Felix Wang 2023-04-16 16:53:44 UTC
The spec file and review.txt seems no issue in my view, and the package is about gtk3 theme that may enhance people's experience. So the package is approved.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1". 94 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/adw-
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

Checking: adw-gtk3-theme-4.5-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5dqaeru6')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Source checksums
https://github.com/lassekongo83/adw-gtk3/archive/v4.5/adw-gtk3-theme-4.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3f42a87da8a8a4ca3a3377e522f772070014827b0970ba1735f131c27291c3b4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f42a87da8a8a4ca3a3377e522f772070014827b0970ba1735f131c27291c3b4

adw-gtk3-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Comment 3 Pavel Solovev 2023-04-16 17:27:47 UTC
Thanks for the review!

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-04-16 17:28:14 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adw-gtk3-theme

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2023-04-16 17:39:38 UTC
FEDORA-2023-5ceba7943e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5ceba7943e

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-04-16 17:40:04 UTC
FEDORA-2023-5ceba7943e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

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