Fedora Merge Review: fedora-logos http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/fedora-logos/ Initial Owner: davidz
BLOCKER: Package is not free software (MUST item in reviews), the license field is not a license type descriton either, but a copyright line instead.
I agree about the license tag. Wrt to the package not being free software, I'll cite the packaging guidelines: "If the content enhances the OS user experience, then the content is OK to be packaged in Fedora Extras." "If you are unsure if something is considered approved content, ask on fedora-extras-list."
So, whats the next step here ?
(In reply to comment #3) > So, whats the next step here ? Someone should take the package for review.
Well, you started a review and left a - behind, so it was not very clear that you don't intend to continue :-(
(In reply to comment #5) > Well, you started a review and left a - behind I'm so sorry if that left the impression that I want to review this package. I just mentioned a blocker item which I came into when looking at the package to see if I want to review it or not.
[NOT OK] rpmlint output: fedora-logos.noarch: W: invalid-license Not licensed. See COPYING file for trademark permission. exception fedora-logos.noarch: W: no-url-tag I guess there this should maybe point to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork or http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo fedora-logos.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fedora-logos.noarch: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/screensavers/system.desktop need to investigate fedora-logos.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-logos probably ok fedora-logos.src:166: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/boot/*png fedora-logos.src:167: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/*.sh fedora-logos.src:168: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/*.jpg At least %{_prefix} for /usr needs to be used. fedora-logos.src:557: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr * Mon Jun 19 2000... - Add %defattr There needs to be an extra percent sign: - Add %%defattr fedora-logos.src: W: invalid-license Not licensed. See COPYING file for trademark permission. fedora-logos.src: W: no-url-tag see above [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format [EXCEPTION] license allowed: This is a special package afaics. [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: COPYING [OK] package is code or permissive content: [EXCEPTION] Source0 is a working URL Afaics CVS is the upstream location for the Sources <NOT OK> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name} Source1: background.png Imho this is to generic, fedora-logos-background.png would be better. [EXCEPTION] Source0 matches Upstream: [OK] Package builds on all platforms: noarch [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin [OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Relocatable_packages [NOT OK] Owns all created directories: e.g.: /usr/share/kde4/apps/ksplash/Themes not sure, whether this is ok. Maybe you should multiown these directories, too. [NOT OK] no duplicates in %files 155 %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/* 156 %{_datadir}/icons/Bluecurve/*/apps/* 162 # we multi-own these directories, so as not to require the packages that 163 # provide them, thereby dragging in excess dependencies. 164 %{_datadir}/icons/Bluecurve 165 %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor Either drop lines 155 and 156 or add a %dir before lines 164 and 165. [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [EXCEPTION] Does not own files or dirs from other packages see comment in spec [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8 [OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [NOT OK] Consistent macro usage /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/boot/*png /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/*.sh /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/*.jpg Use %{_prefix} instead of /usr [OK] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime {OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) {OK} PreReq not used {OK} no duplication of system libraries {OK} no rpath {OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and %{buildroot} on %install and %clean) {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format <OK> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch {OK} Follows Naming Guidelines Will check later: {} Conflicts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts {} Scriptlets complete rpmlint output (desktop file) Btw: infinity-grub.xpm.gz is both in cvs and sources file
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.