rpmlint output: 
[mclasen@localhost Desktop]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/bluecurve-metacity-theme-1.0.0-1.fc8.noarch.rpm

bluecurve-metacity-theme.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL

package name: ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: ok
license: ok
license field: invalid
license file: ok
spec file language: AE
spec file readability: excellent
upstream sources: no upstream yet
buildability: ok
ExcludeArch: n/a
BRs: ok
locales: ok
shared libs: n/a
relocatable: n/a
directory ownership: who is supposed to own 
  /usr/share/themes/Bluecurve in the new regime ?
%files: ok
permissions: ok
%clean: ok
macro use: consistent
content: permissible
large docs: n/a
%doc: ok
headers: n/a
static libs: n/a
pc files: n/a
shared libs: n/a
devel package: n/a
libtool archives: ok
gui apps: n/a
directory ownership: see above
%install: ok
utf8 filenames: ok

Further comments: 
%description is misleading, since we are to this day shipping Bluecurve.

fixed.  I'm going to need to do another one

bluecurve-gnome-theme 

to cover the directory ownership (and old the meta theme file).  It fell through
the cracks when I did the split up.

but then you need to make this package require bluecurve-gnome-theme ?

i don't know, aside from the dir ownership issue, it makes more sense for
bluecurve-gnome-theme to require bluecurve-metacity-theme, not the other way
around...

So I talked to Matthias about this a bit today.  The consensus is we'll have all
the theme packages own /usr/share/themes/Bluecurve.

We think that's probably better than a circular dependency or
bluecurve-filesystem...

Approved

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: bluecurve-metacity-theme
Short Description: Bluecurve Metacity theme
Owners: rstrode,davidz
Branches:
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: no

done