Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/xapp-symbolic-icons/xapp-symbolic-icons.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/xapp-symbolic-icons/xapp-symbolic-icons-0.1~20251023gitc1354f0-0.1.fc43.src.rpm Description: A set of symbolic icons which replaces the GNOME-specific Adwaita set. All provided icons are prefixed with xsi- and places in /usr/share/icons/hicolor. Icon names losely follow the Adwaita names. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9736206 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406503-xapp-symbolic-icons/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09736206-xapp-symbolic-icons/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/xapp-symbolic-icons/xapp-symbolic-icons.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/xapp-symbolic-icons/xapp-symbolic-icons-1.0.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2116430 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9736206 to 9843279
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9843279 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406503-xapp-symbolic-icons/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09843279-xapp-symbolic-icons/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 work. [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 %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 506 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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 ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xapp-symbolic-icons-1.0.5-1.fc44.noarch.rpm xapp-symbolic-icons-1.0.5-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmnfbao1f')] checks: 32, packages: 2 xapp-symbolic-icons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xsi', '%description -l en_US xsi -> xis, XS, Si') xapp-symbolic-icons.src: E: spelling-error ('xsi', '%description -l en_US xsi -> xis, XS, Si') xapp-symbolic-icons.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xsi-replace-adwaita-symbolic xapp-symbolic-icons.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 xapp-symbolic-icons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xsi', '%description -l en_US xsi -> xcii, xis, xi') xapp-symbolic-icons.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xsi-replace-adwaita-symbolic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/xapp-project/xapp-symbolic-icons/archive/1.0.5/xapp-symbolic-icons-1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1b7fe73e3050bb35bf939629b1160a54fd5e2147225d856175c0d5a2e5366527 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b7fe73e3050bb35bf939629b1160a54fd5e2147225d856175c0d5a2e5366527 Requires -------- xapp-symbolic-icons (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 hicolor-icon-theme Provides -------- xapp-symbolic-icons: xapp-symbolic-icons Summary: ------- - Non blocking comments: a) Support for commit based release don't seems needed and can be removed b) > URL: https://github.com/xapp-project/%{name} Simpler just to be explicit and use URL: https://github.com/xapp-project/xapp-symbolic-icons c) > Version: 1.0.5%{!?tag:~%{date}git%{shortcommit0}} > Release: 1%{?dist} > Summary: A set of symbolic icons which replaces the GNOME-specific Adwaita set > > License: GPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-only > BuildArch: noarch > BuildRequires: meson > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme All the empty lines don't help readability for me. d) > * Fri Nov 07 2025 Leigh Scott <leigh123linux> - 0.1~20251107gitab8fefc-0.2 > - Update git snapshot > * Sun Oct 26 2025 Leigh Scott <leigh123linux> - 0.1~20251023gitc1354f0-0.1 > - First build Can be removed Any way, package is APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xapp-symbolic-icons
Thanks for the review, do you need anything reviewing?
Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2416073 would be helpful.
Seems fixed