Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 290041
Review Request: generic-logos - Icons and pictures
Last modified: 2014-03-16 23:08:23 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/generic-logos.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/generic-logos-7.92.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
The generic-logos package contains various image files which can be
used by the bootloader, anaconda, and other related tools. It can
be used as a replacement for the fedora-logos package, if you are
unable for any reason to abide by the trademark restrictions on the
Needed to implement http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureGenericLogos
I'd be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit.
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPLv2)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane.
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
1. Should the
# should be ifarch i386
bits really be %ifarch? why aren't they now...
2. I assume cvs is the Source for this package?
Perhaps it would be worth making a hosted project in case people want to
work on/contribute to this package?
3. rpmlint says:
generic-logos.noarch: W: no-url-tag
generic-logos.src: W: no-url-tag
A hosted (or other upstream) would fix this.
generic-logos.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Ignore since it has to put anaconda-runtime has to be there.
generic-logos.src:10: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-logos
Can you specifiy a version on that Obsoletes?
generic-logos.src:70: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/*.jpg
No way to avoid that I see off hand. Do you?
generic-logos.src: W: strange-permission generic-logos.spec 0600
Spec should be 644.
4. Should this package Require the anaconda, grub, and other packages
where it places images in dirs they own? Or should this be an exception
to that rule?
(In reply to comment #2)
> 1. Should the
> # should be ifarch i386
> bits really be %ifarch? why aren't they now...
It's a noarch package, and making it per-arch probably isn't worth it.
> 2. I assume cvs is the Source for this package?
> Perhaps it would be worth making a hosted project in case people want to
> work on/contribute to this package?
At the moment, it's CVS on my laptop. Will move to somewhere @ fp.o once it's
> 3. rpmlint says:
> generic-logos.noarch: W: no-url-tag
> generic-logos.src: W: no-url-tag
> A hosted (or other upstream) would fix this.
> generic-logos.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> Ignore since it has to put anaconda-runtime has to be there.
> generic-logos.src:10: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-logos
> Can you specifiy a version on that Obsoletes?
Not sure what the last version is. The idea is to obsolete any redhat-logos from
earlier RHL or RHEL releases.
> generic-logos.src:70: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/*.jpg
> No way to avoid that I see off hand. Do you?
That's where anaconda is looking for it.
> generic-logos.src: W: strange-permission generic-logos.spec 0600
> Spec should be 644.
AFAICT, this is a RPM bug. It's 0644 in the tarball, and the source RPM is built
> 4. Should this package Require the anaconda, grub, and other packages
> where it places images in dirs they own? Or should this be an exception
> to that rule?
Hm. fedora-logos very specifically doesn't do this, because you don't want the
grub splash pulling in anaconda, for example. This would fall in the same category.
ok. That all makes sense to me... I see no further blockers here,
so this package is APPROVED.
Don't forget to close this once it's been imported and built.
Also, a nice hosted space or something would be good if you can manage it.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: generic-logos
Short Description: icons and pictures
Cvsextras Commits: no
Note: Owners: should be an FAS ID, not an email address. Fortunately yours is easy.