https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861 --- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> --- > - Dist tag is present. Please use "%{?dist}" in place of "%{dist}" in the Release field. > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > contains icons. > Note: icons in numix-icon-theme-circle The icon cache generation is missing, please look at the following link: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache Apply the examples exactly as they are, simply repeating the snippets for the themes installed (Numix-Circle adn Numix-Circle-Light) in place of "hicolor". > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. > numix-icon-theme-circle.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-7 ['0.1.0-7.git475d649.fc23', '0.1.0-7.git475d649'] You should have exactly the same name-version-release tags in the changelog as the package that you are generating. That is, in this case: 0.1.0-7.git475d649 Please note that actually (next time) when you update the spec file with "rpmdev-bumpspec" it will actually put the correct tag in the changelog as required. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. The directory %{_datadir}/icons is not owned by your package, please add "filesystem" as requirement. It's always installed, but better be safe than sorry. $ rpm -qf /usr/share/icons/ filesystem-3.2-37.fc24.x86_64 > - 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 %license. > Note: License file license is marked as %doc instead of %license > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- /home/slaanesh/reviews/1330861-numix-icon-theme-circle/srpm/numix-icon-theme-circle.spec 2016-05-02 14:45:04.338709562 +0200 > +++ /home/slaanesh/reviews/1330861-numix-icon-theme-circle/srpm-unpacked/numix-icon-theme-circle.spec 2016-04-19 21:23:03.000000000 +0200 > @@ -14,5 +14,4 @@ > > BuildArch: noarch > -Requires: numix-icon-theme > > %description > @@ -31,13 +30,9 @@ > > %files > -%license license > -%doc readme.md > +%doc license readme.md > %{_datadir}/icons/Numix-Circle > %{_datadir}/icons/Numix-Circle-Light > > %changelog > -* Wed Apr 20 2016 Sascha Spreitzer <sspreitz@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1.0-8 > -- license tag for license file, diffable lines > - > * Tue Apr 19 2016 Sascha Spreitzer <sspreitz@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1.0-7 > - split spec file This is due to the fact that you uploaded an udpated SPEC file without updating the SRPM as well. When posting the new URLs for fixing the above comments, please use 2 new lines ub a separate comment: Spec URL: SRPM URL: fedora-review uses the latest entries it finds in each bugzilla review bug. > numix-icon-theme-circle.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C It is heavily inspired by, and based upon parts of the Elementary, Humanity and Gnome icon themes Please use new lines before/at 80 columns (...and complete the sentence with a dot :D ). > numix-icon-theme-circle.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/Numix-Circle/48x48/apps/gerbv.svg > [..etc..] Please make sure all files in /usr/share are not executable. In this case they should all be permission 644. > numix-icon-theme-circle.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Numix-Circle-Light/16x16/panel ../../Numix-Light/16/panel These are all errors relative to the fact that the symlink points to a package of numix-icon-theme. This is fine, but you need to add the requirements in the package: Requires: numix-icon-theme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx