Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukiwi/zukiwi.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukiwi/zukiwi-20120708-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The Zukiwi themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell, created by lassekongo83. Fedora Account System Username: odysseus
I've used the .spec file of this package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 as a template for this. Here you'll find RPM packages for Fedora 17: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukiwi/2012.07.09/RPMs/ Rpmlint, run on .spec file, SRPM and RPMs, returns: $ rpmlint $NAME.spec ../RPMS/*/*$NAME*.rpm ../SRPMS/$NAME*.rpm gnome-shell-theme-zukiwi.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency liberation-narrow-fonts 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. I cannot understand the reason for this error: liberation-narrow-fonts is a package containing fonts (as like as google-droid-sans-fonts, which never gave me any errors) and is certainly not a library!
All your subpackages contain the same docs and own the same base folder for the theme. I propose to create a zukiwi-common package which owns this folder. See here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517#c2
(In reply to comment #2) > All your subpackages contain the same docs and own the same base folder for > the theme. I propose to create a zukiwi-common package which owns this > folder. See here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517#c2 Thank you. I've updated the package according to your suggestions (I've also updated it to the latest upstream version and dropped google-droid-sans-fonts from the dependencied of the GNOME Shell theme): Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukiwi/2012.07.10/zukiwi.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukiwi/2012.07.10/zukiwi-20120709-1.fc17.src.rpm Rpmlint returns: $ rpmlint $NAME.spec ../RPMS/*/*$NAME*.rpm ../SRPMS/$NAME*.rpm gnome-shell-theme-zukiwi.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency liberation-narrow-fonts gnome-shell-theme-zukiwi.noarch: W: no-documentation zukiwi-gtk2-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation zukiwi-gtk3-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation zukiwi-metacity-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation zukiwi-xfwm4-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. ( RPM packages for Fedora 17: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukiwi/2012.07.10/RPMs/ ) By the way, do you think that I should edit also the packages I'm already maintaining and that are already in the official repositories (Zukitwo: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 and Zukini: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 ) by adding a "*-common" subpackage to them?
Mario, do you want to officially review this package? Mattia: editing the existing packages sounds like a good idea, please do that. By the way -- the GTK3 parts are currently causing segfaults if used on Rawhide (against GTK3 3.5.x) - please let upstream know.
> Mattia: editing the existing packages sounds like a good idea, please do > that. OK. By the way, as for Zukitwo, a doubt has arisen. Please have a look here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169#c52 > By the way -- the GTK3 parts are currently causing segfaults if used on Rawhide > (against GTK3 3.5.x) - please let upstream know. I think this theme is meant to be compatible with GNOME 3.4 only. Anyway, I'll notify upstream. Thank you.
(In reply to comment #4) > Mario, do you want to officially review this package? > Yes, I'll do so. Be patient, could need a few days.
(In reply to comment #6) > Yes, I'll do so. Be patient, could need a few days. Ok, thank you. In the meantime, I'd really like some suggestion on how to deal with the package structure of Zukitwo. Please read starting from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169#c52 As for Zukini, I've already corrected the package and submitted an update. It should be OK, but, if you wish to have a look at it, here it is: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=330557
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4250309 Rpmlint is silent so far, only: $ rpmlint -i -v * gnome-shell-theme-zukiwi.noarch: I: checking gnome-shell-theme-zukiwi.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency liberation-narrow-fonts You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. Ignorable, because we have a noarch package, and usually rpm is unable to find the correct runtime requirements. Moreover, rpmlint doesn't see any documentation. Doesn't matter, we don't have special docs for each subpackage and cannot provide them. --------------------------------- 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. GPLv3 [+] 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 * 41ec5e56acb40d9a04af2fc054e5039f zukiwi_by_lassekongo83-d56k4sl.zip 41ec5e56acb40d9a04af2fc054e5039f zukiwi_by_lassekongo83-d56k4sl.zip.packaged [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - See Koji build above. [.] 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... [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway) [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Works fine on my system (metacity part not tested) [+] 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 ----------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: zukiwi Short Description: Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell Owners: odysseus Branches: f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: zukiwi Short Description: The Zukiwi themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4, created by lassekongo83. Owners: odysseus I've corrected only the "Short Description" string. No further changes needed. Thank you.
Misformatted request; WARNING: No new branches requested.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: zukiwi Short Description: The Zukiwi themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4, created by lassekongo83. New Branches: f17 Owners: odysseus Was the previous request misformatted because of the missing "branch" field? If so, here's a new request. The only thing that needs to be changed is the "Short Description" field.
f17 already exists.
zukiwi-20120709-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zukiwi-20120709-1.fc17
zukiwi-20120709-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
zukiwi-20120709-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.