Spec URL: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec SRPM URL: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This package contains the Happy Hot Dog boot splash theme for Plymouth. The mustard indicates progress. Installable RPM: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-1.fc14.noarch.rpm See also: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/
/me is shocked that no one has yet taken this on in the week proceeding. Allow me to do the honors for the Beefy Miracle :)
Source0 isn't a proper URL GPL isn't a valid license tag. Those are the only problems I see at the moment.
Please use %global instead of %define. Other than that the spec looks good and beefy miracle can save our souls soon.
is the review stalled somewhat? Beefy Miracle already has its own downloadable spin today!
Sorry, got held up by other tasks. New spec uploaded to: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec No code changes, so there's no new RPMs.
Source0 still isn't fixed, and release number and changelog weren't incremented.
Y'know, it'd be helpful if you mentioned the suggested fix, or gave a link to the page containing the relevant guideline. Nevertheless... FEAST YOUR EYEMEATS UPON THIS: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-2.fc14.src.rpm http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-2.fc14.noarch.rpm
sorry about my lack of verbosity. My only point of concern is that I see no licensing comments anywhere outside of the spec, and thus can't confirm the license, and while I know that this content was produced inside fedora, having something that explicitly says what it is in the tarball would make me feel more warm and fuzzy. Also this is largely a content package - the real content here is the images, so I wonder if CC-BY-SA is not more appropriate (content submitted to fedora sans a license automatically gets cc-by-sa 3.0 unported, whereas code submitted to fedora sans a license automatically gets MIT, though maybe that's what is written in the new FPCA and thus doesn't apply yet.) Thoughts?? [OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec ../RPMS/noarch/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-2.fc14.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3-2.fc14.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [FIX] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [FIX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [NA] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SOURCES]$ md5sum plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3.tar.bz2* 164502f2256f2d83b6f1b0f91db0fc7b plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3.tar.bz2 164502f2256f2d83b6f1b0f91db0fc7b plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.3.tar.bz2.1 [OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [NA] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [NA] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [OK] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [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. [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [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. [NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [OK] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [OK] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
I actually thought CC-BY-SA made more sense as well; I'll have to make sure the original authors of the image(s) are credited somewhere in the package.
AT LONG LAST! LOOK UPON THE BEEFY MIRACLE, YE MIGHTY, AND DESPAIR: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec I consider this a blocker for F16. And F15. We must go back in time and add this to F15. BOARD THE TIME MACHINE AND LET US MAKE HISTORY.
FYI: According to http://darkmattermatters.com/2011/10/11/the-origins-of-the-beefy-miracle beefy miracle was created by Kyle Hoyt. http://www.stationzero.org/kylehoyt/ David, can we continue with this?
Do your enterprise install a favor or impress your friends with: http://people.redhat.com/rprice/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog-0.4-2.el6.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/rprice/hot-dog/plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec
APPROVED Thanks for working on this Will.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: plymouth-theme-hot-dog Short Description: Owners: wwoods Branches: f14 f15 f16 el6 InitialCC: cwickert
Please include a description.
Sorry, my bad. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: plymouth-theme-hot-dog Short Description: Plymouth Happy Hot Dog Theme Owners: wwoods Branches: f14 f15 f16 el6 InitialCC: cwickert
Git done (by process-git-requests).
What is the status of this? I don't see the package in F16
Nor in F17. Ping?
This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.