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=453412 John Anderson <john.e.anderson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(tuomas.mursu@kaps | |i.fi) --- Comment #5 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-10 11:46:07 EDT --- Looking pretty good, a few things: 1) You can safely remove the "Requires: gtk2", gtk2-devel should take care of that 2) I looked at the names of other gtk engine packages, and they all followed the format gtk-engine-name I think gtk-engine-aurora would be a better fit 3) I see a minor ownership problem for %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0, see below 4) I would consider putting the themes in a subpackage Please remember to increment the version and update the changelog NEEDSWORK for now. MUST Items: OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. FIX - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines The rest of the gtk engines in Fedora follow the format gtk-engine-name, I would stick with that and change to gtk-engine-aurora OK - MUST: The spec file named in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Ok - MUST: License text included in doc OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. 95e8dab631202504d27eb9925f13317f OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK - MUST: Builds on all archs OK - MUST: All build dependencies listed OK - MUST: No locales OK - MUST: No ldconfig needed OK - MUST: Not relocated OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . OK - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK - MUST: No large docs OK - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK - MUST: No headers OK - MUST: No static libraries OK - MUST: No pkgconfig OK - MUST: No library files with a suffix OK - MUST: N/A no devel for devel name OK - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK - MUST: Not a GUI app, no .desktop needed FIX - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. package owns /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0 and /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines In files I'd make this change %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0/*/engines/* OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Theme works well -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review