Bug 453412 - (gtk-aurora-engine) Review Request: gtk-aurora-engine - Aurora theme engine for gtk2
Review Request: gtk-aurora-engine - Aurora theme engine for gtk2
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 575466
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: John Anderson
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-06-30 09:53 EDT by Tuomas Mursu
Modified: 2013-10-19 10:41 EDT (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-03-23 04:34:06 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
john.e.anderson: fedora‑review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Tuomas Mursu 2008-06-30 09:53:16 EDT
Spec URL: http://koti.kapsi.fi/~darkon/rpm/rev/gtk-aurora-engine/0/gtk-aurora-engine.spec
SRPM URL: http://koti.kapsi.fi/~darkon/rpm/rev/gtk-aurora-engine/0/gtk-aurora-engine-1.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: Aurora theme engine for gtk2

This is my first package submission for Fedora, and so I'm seeking a sponsor.
Comment 1 John Anderson 2008-09-30 21:34:40 EDT
I'm looking for sponsorship as well, so I can't do a full review, but I'd like to point out a few things.

1) It would be nice if you could link directly to the source. I notice 
http://www.gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-files/56438-Aurora-1.4.tar.bz2
seems to work for the main source file.

2) Add a -q to your %setup

3) The permissions in source1 are kind of screwy. You can fix them in the files section with something like this:

%attr(755, -, root) %{_datadir}/themes/*
%attr(644, -, root) /usr/share/themes/Aurora-Midnight/gtk-2.0/gtkrc
%attr(644, -, root) /usr/share/themes/Aurora/gtk-2.0/gtkrc
%attr(644, -, root) /usr/share/themes/Aurora-looks/gtk-2.0/gtkrc

Otherwise, it looks good to me. It builds and installs fine against rawhide.
Comment 2 John Anderson 2008-10-22 20:59:48 EDT
Are you interested in making these fixes, otherwise I would be interested in working on this package?
Comment 3 Tuomas Mursu 2008-10-23 00:47:47 EDT
Yeah I'm interested, just been kinda busy lately :) I'll upload fixed packages in a few days.
Comment 4 Tuomas Mursu 2008-10-23 08:41:25 EDT
Well well, it didn't take that long. I changed %prep too so that everything stays under one directory.

Spec URL:
http://koti.kapsi.fi/~darkon/rpm/rev/gtk-aurora-engine/1/gtk-aurora-engine.spec
SRPM URL:
http://koti.kapsi.fi/~darkon/rpm/rev/gtk-aurora-engine/1/gtk-aurora-engine-1.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
Comment 5 John Anderson 2008-11-10 11:46:07 EST
Looking pretty good, a few things:

1) You can safely remove the "Requires: gtk2", gtk2-devel should take care of that
2) I looked at the names of other gtk engine packages, and they all followed the format gtk-engine-name I think gtk-engine-aurora would be a better fit
3) I see a minor ownership problem for %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0, see below
4) I would consider putting the themes in a subpackage

Please remember to increment the version and update the changelog

NEEDSWORK for now.

MUST Items:

OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
FIX - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
The rest of the gtk engines in Fedora follow the format gtk-engine-name, I would stick with that and change to gtk-engine-aurora
OK - MUST: The spec file named in the format %{name}.spec
OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Ok - MUST: License text included in doc
OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
95e8dab631202504d27eb9925f13317f
OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
OK - MUST: Builds on all archs
OK - MUST: All build dependencies listed
OK - MUST: No locales
OK - MUST: No ldconfig needed
OK - MUST: Not relocated
OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK - MUST: No large docs
OK - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
OK - MUST: No headers
OK - MUST: No static libraries
OK - MUST: No pkgconfig
OK - MUST: No library files with a suffix
OK - MUST: N/A no devel for devel name
OK - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.
OK - MUST: Not a GUI app, no .desktop needed
FIX - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
package owns /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0 and /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines
In files I'd make this change %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0/*/engines/*
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:

OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Theme works well
Comment 6 Felix Kaechele 2009-03-02 19:12:52 EST
Is anybody still working on this?
Comment 7 Rahul Sundaram 2010-03-23 04:34:06 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 575466 ***

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