Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-logos.spec SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-logos-2-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1993389 Description: This is another major requirement for the SoaS effort.
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/sugar-logos-2-1.fc14.* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 687fc657bcb1cf01a2b47093063e2dc5 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all architectures OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: none OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains permissible content OK - MUST: no large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Timestamps match upstream source and are preserved during %install Issues: Is this GPLv2 or GPLv2+? I couldn't find any info in the source. You are the author, please clarify the license and add an AUTHORS file in the next release. I wonder if "sugar-logos" is the proper name for this package. Usually a *-logos package contains *all* the branding. Is this already sufficient for SOAS or are you planning to enhance the source with more graphics so it becomes a full counterpart to fedora-logos/generic-logos? If so, you need to add "Provides: system-logos". IMHO this package should be named "plymouth-theme-sugar" to be in line with the rest of our packages. Even if you include more icons in the source, you should package the plymouth theme separately I think. soas.plymouth contains a hardcoded path with /usr/share/. Fix this upstream.
(In reply to comment #1) Thanks for taking on this one! ;) > Issues: > > Is this GPLv2 or GPLv2+? I couldn't find any info in the source. You are the > author, please clarify the license and add an AUTHORS file in the next release. Well, http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-logos/repos/mainline/blobs/master/COPYING says that "the images in sugar-logos are licensed as GPLv2+." but I guess that could be improved, indeed. I'll add an AUTHORS file for the next release (which should happen soon anyway, as we need some new stuff for v3). > I wonder if "sugar-logos" is the proper name for this package. Usually a > *-logos package contains *all* the branding. Is this already sufficient for > SOAS or are you planning to enhance the source with more graphics so it becomes > a full counterpart to fedora-logos/generic-logos? If so, you need to add > "Provides: system-logos". > IMHO this package should be named "plymouth-theme-sugar" to be in line with the > rest of our packages. Even if you include more icons in the source, you should > package the plymouth theme separately I think. I was thinking about this, too. This package is currently not a full counter-part to fedora-logos and such. However, it might contain additional images and related stuff in the future. http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/fedora-logos/fedora-logos.spec?view=markup also contains the plymouth images which is why I originally went with this naming. > soas.plymouth contains a hardcoded path with /usr/share/. Fix this upstream. http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/plymouth/charge.plymouth?view=markup does the same thing (which admittedly isn't exactly an argument for doing it, though) - the files it links to will always live in that path.
Ok, I suggest to stick with the name sugar-logos, at least for now. Once the package contains more images than just the plymouth screen, you couls/should split it. The srpm remains sugar-logos. Don't forget to add a "Provides: system-logos" once this becomes a full logo package and conflicts with the others. APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: sugar-logos Short Description: Boot splash imagery for Sugar on a Stick Owners: sdz Branches: F-13
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
sugar-logos-2-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-logos-2-1.fc13
sugar-logos-2-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.