Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566163 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-20 21:01:12 EST --- 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review