Spec URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/constantine-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/constantine-backgrounds-11.90.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Set of wallpapers we (design-team) are preparing for F12 Constantine.
Looks like I left F11_Artwork in the URL instead of F12_Artwork... I'll change it together with source url when I finish to upload it on fedorahosted.
Uploaded and changed. New SPEC URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/constantine-backgrounds.spec I think re-uploading SRPM is not necessary, as the change is only cosmetic (and 24MB is rather a lot).
I'll take this.
[ OK ] source files match upstream: fb004429dbd5ba53b8e0cef379d5ea23 constantine-backgrounds-11.90.0.tar.lzma fb004429dbd5ba53b8e0cef379d5ea23 constantine-backgrounds-11.90.0.tar.lzma.1 [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ N/A ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ N/A ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane constantine-backgrounds = 11.90.0-2.fc11 constantine-backgrounds-extras = 11.90.0-2.fc11 [ N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [FAILED] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. Both the main package and the subpackage own /usr/share/backgrounds/constantine. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ N/A ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ N/A ] desktop files valid and installed properly.
(In reply to comment #4) > [ ] package builds in mock. Still building this in mock, will post the result shortly.
Mock build [ OK ]
(In reply to comment #4) > [FAILED] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. The packages can be installed independently so it should be OK to own the dir by both, alternative would be to create another sub-package owning the directory and have both packages require it.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #4) > > [FAILED] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. > The packages can be installed independently so it should be OK to own the dir > by both, alternative would be to create another sub-package owning the > directory and have both packages require it. The case I'm referring to is 2) in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
Oh. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This package (constantine-backgrounds) is APPROVED by me (ianweller) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: constantine-backgrounds Short Description: Constantine desktop backgrounds Owners: mso Branches: InitialCC:
CVS done.
This bug needs to be closed. Given the late hour, should it be RAWHIDE or CURRENTRELEASE? :-)
Darn, I don't know how it happened I forgot to close it... Anyway. Given that it has been practically closed during F12 rawhide, I think RAWHIDE is better resolution...