Spec URL: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/aldabra-theme-gnome/aldabra-theme-gnome.spec SRPM URL: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/aldabra-theme-gnome/aldabra-theme-gnome-0.7.5-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Aldabra is a GTK2 theme that uses the Murrine and Pixmap engines to mimic the look of Adwaita, the default GNOME 3 theme. The goal of this theme is to provide visual consistency between GTK2 and GTK3 applications. Additional informations: 1) rpmlint : $ rpmlint aldabra-theme-gnome-0.7.5-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint aldabra-theme-gnome-0.7.5-1.fc15.noarch.rpmaldabra-theme-gnome.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/themes/Aldabra/metacity-1 /usr/share/themes/Adwaita/metacity-1 aldabra-theme-gnome.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/themes/Aldabra/backgrounds /usr/share/themes/Adwaita/backgrounds aldabra-theme-gnome.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/themes/Aldabra/gtk-3.0 /usr/share/themes/Adwaita/gtk-3.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ->The sources embed the backgrounds, the Metacity and the GTK3 Adwaita theme. As recommended by the maintainer of the theme, the package uses symlinks to the system Adwaita theme. 2) mock : builds fine in mock.
*** Bug 714383 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Where do you've got the license info from? The website at gnome-look.org says: "Anyone is welcome to rename, package, or otherwise distribute the theme (in whole or in part). Constructive feedback is greatly appreciated." Well, the bundled Adwaita part is LGPL, but is not significant in this case. In my mind, the declaration above should point to Public Domain.
(In reply to comment #2) > Where do you've got the license info from? The website at gnome-look.org says: Before packaging this theme, I wrote the author for clarifications about the license. After discussion, he set the license of its work under the LGPLv2 license and put the appropriate COPYING file in its theme archive.
One issue: Please add the switch -p to cp to keep timestamps.
(In reply to comment #4) > One issue: Please add the switch -p to cp to keep timestamps. According to « man cp »: -a, --archive same as -dR --preserve=all The « -a » preserves timestamps.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > One issue: Please add the switch -p to cp to keep timestamps. > According to « man cp »: > -a, --archive > same as -dR --preserve=all > The « -a » preserves timestamps. Ok, you are right. Never used this before, I always use "install -p" or "cp -p". Sorry for the blurb.
Referring to the rpmlint output provided by you: The "dangling symlinks" are false positive. All of the dependencies are present. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. LGPLv2 [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum * abe7f9234ea3842dc78b08643b1f2d51 142247-Aldabra-0.7.5.zip abe7f9234ea3842dc78b08643b1f2d51 142247-Aldabra-0.7.5.zip.packaged [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - Build on my own machine was succesful. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled. [.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information, the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), ... [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream... Well, the first package v0.7.5 provided by the upstream developers came without a license declaration. But it was updated recently without pushing the version number. Somewhat odd though, but now we have a valid license. [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Builds without errors. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Works perfectly. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. ------------------------------------------------------------- PACKAGE APPROVED -------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your review :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: aldabra-theme-gnome Short Description: Aldabra theme pack for GNOME Owners: melmorabity Branches: f15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
aldabra-theme-gnome-0.7.5-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aldabra-theme-gnome-0.7.5-1.fc15
aldabra-theme-gnome-0.7.5-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
aldabra-theme-gnome-0.7.5-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.