Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.11.08/zukini.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.11.08/zukini-20120817-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: The Zukini themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell, created by lassekongo83. Fedora Account System Username: odysseus Note: This package was already reviewed and accepted. I have to request a new review because, after blocking it on some branches, I need to un-block it (see https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387 ).
Here's the old review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [-]: Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check Which we knew. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: zukini-common-20120817-2.fc17.noarch.rpm zukini-gtk2-theme-20120817-2.fc17.noarch.rpm zukini-gtk3-theme-20120817-2.fc17.noarch.rpm zukini-metacity-theme-20120817-2.fc17.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-theme-zukini-20120817-2.fc17.noarch.rpm zukini-gtk2-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation zukini-gtk3-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation zukini-metacity-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation gnome-shell-theme-zukini.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint zukini-metacity-theme zukini-gtk3-theme gnome-shell- theme-zukini zukini-gtk2-theme zukini-common zukini-metacity-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation zukini-gtk3-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation gnome-shell-theme-zukini.noarch: W: no-documentation zukini-gtk2-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- zukini-metacity-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): metacity zukini-common zukini-gtk3-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gtk-unico-engine zukini-common gnome-shell-theme-zukini (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell-extension-user-theme google-droid-sans-fonts zukini-common zukini-gtk2-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gtk-murrine-engine gtk2-engines zukini-common zukini-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- zukini-metacity-theme: zukini-metacity-theme zukini-gtk3-theme: zukini-gtk3-theme gnome-shell-theme-zukini: gnome-shell-theme-zukini zukini-gtk2-theme: zukini-gtk2-theme zukini-common: zukini-common MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.deviantart.com/download/272660042/zukini_by_lassekongo83-d4ic1u2.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 225710fb3415068f82b96a17690ff0eef173c95475460c7c7ec05bf2663a24ef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 225710fb3415068f82b96a17690ff0eef173c95475460c7c7ec05bf2663a24ef Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (965e05c) last change: 2012-10-30 Buildroot used: fedora-17-i386 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 874718 -m fedora-17-i386 No problems found (and a very thorough review in June by Michel Salim). ***APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: zukini Short Description: Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell Owners: odysseus Branches: f16 f17 f18 f19 InitialCC:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: zukini Short Description: The Zukini themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell, created by lassekongo83 Owners: odysseus Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Already exists.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: zukini New Branches: f18 Owners: odysseus I need to unblock this package on all branches > f17. I wish a "Package Change Request" is the right way to do so.
It isn't, file a trac with rel-eng.
Clearing flag.
(In reply to comment #7) > It isn't, file a trac with rel-eng. Here's the Trac request to Release Engineering: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387 Their answer was that the right procedure is to submit a new review request to Bugzilla! So, who's right?!
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #7) > > It isn't, file a trac with rel-eng. > > Here's the Trac request to Release Engineering: > https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387 > Their answer was that the right procedure is to submit a new review request > to Bugzilla! > > So, who's right?! This comment clarifies everything: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387#comment:7 Now the package is in the "updates-testing" repository. Thank you all.