[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2014-01-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #13 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
Hi. I don't know how to find a sponsor. It'll be great if someone can find me
one.

1. Remove Group tag as it's not used by Fedora as MUST.

---> Done.

2. You'd better use http://numixproject.org/ as URL of the RPM but not a URL
shortten service shortlink.

---> The short-link was not a URL shorten service, rather than the deviantArt
page, anyways I changed it to http://numixproject.org

3. %install

 - 1. First, %{__install} --> install

 ---> Done.

 - 2. Second,

  Please use install command to copy them via install -pm644.

 ---> Sorry, but the install command cannot install directories and only files.
So I cannot use it here.

4. This package should be renamed to numix-themes, thus the dependencies looks
agreeable:

---> Done.

I first thought this package was this one:

https://github.com/numixproject/numix-icon-theme

---> The package name numix-gtk-theme doesn't certainly refer to
numix-icon-theme, but I changed it to numix-themes anyways.

Here are the new links,

http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-themes/numix-themes.spec
http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-themes/numix-themes-2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2014-01-08 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng  ---
Please find a sponsor, otherwise you may never be able to package anything to
Fedora...(Not taunt)

1. Remove Group tag as it's not used by Fedora as MUST.

2. You'd better use http://numixproject.org/ as URL of the RPM but not a URL
shortten service shortlink.

3. %install
%{__install} -d -m755 %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/themes/%{theme}
for file in gtk-2.0 gtk-3.0 metacity-1 openbox-3 unity xfce-notify-4.0 xfwm4
index.theme; do
%{__cp} -a ${file} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/themes/%{theme}
done

 - 1. First, %{__install} --> install

 - 2. Second,

for file in gtk-2.0 gtk-3.0 metacity-1 openbox-3 unity xfce-notify-4.0 xfwm4
index.theme; do
%{__cp} -a ${file} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/themes/%{theme}
done

Please use install command to copy them via install -pm644.

4. This package should be renamed to numix-themes, thus the dependencies looks
agreeable:

Requires:numix-common
Requires:numix-gtk2-theme
Requires:numix-gtk3-theme
Requires:numix-metacity-theme
Requires:numix-openbox-theme
Requires:numix-xfce-notify-theme
Requires:numix-xfwm4-theme

I first thought this package was this one:

https://github.com/numixproject/numix-icon-theme

But then I found I was wrong... So be careful on choosing names.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2014-01-08 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #11 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
I updated the SPEC and SRPMs. Here are the new links.

http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix-gtk-theme.spec
http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix-gtk-theme-2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2014-01-08 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557

Satyajit Sahoo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|rawhide |20



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-10-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557

Satyajit Sahoo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|20  |rawhide



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=laHVvNDpgA&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557

Satyajit Sahoo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|rawhide |20



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HR9azXlIWR&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #10 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9)
> (In reply to Satyajit Sahoo from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
> > > I've packaged it for a long time, CCing.
> > 
> > I couldn't find a package! Link?
> 
> I've packaged it in my private repo for a long time since I first used it on
> Archlinux, I planned to package it for Fedora, but now you submitted it. So
> please go ahead ;)

Thanks :D

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=54uudcj04G&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng  ---
(In reply to Satyajit Sahoo from comment #8)
> (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
> > I've packaged it for a long time, CCing.
> 
> I couldn't find a package! Link?

I've packaged it in my private repo for a long time since I first used it on
Archlinux, I planned to package it for Fedora, but now you submitted it. So
please go ahead ;)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZuXAutkzc9&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #8 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
> I've packaged it for a long time, CCing.

I couldn't find a package! Link?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E1ugCbxk7k&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #7 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
Spec URL: http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix.spec
SRPM URL:
http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e7S4g6k47x&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cicku...@gmail.com



--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng  ---
I've packaged it for a long time, CCing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t5sUAKeUdT&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #5 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
I've fixed the issues you mentioned.

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

 ---> Changed license to GPLv3+.

[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

 ---> Added version.

[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4

 ---> Removed %defattr.

[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

 ---> Sorry, no clue.

[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

 ---> Probably it should now.

[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

 ---> Used `%{__cp} -pr` instead of `%{__cp} -r`.

[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

 ---> Used %global instead of %define.  Removed %{author}.

I've also splitted the package. But I still don't understand why I should split
the package. One who installs the GTK theme is expected to have both the GTK2
and GTK3 themes, coz new apps are mostly GTK3. And he would also need the
metacity themes, even if he uses Xfwm4, in case he uses compiz.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kDQJtDm5gA&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557

Christoph Wickert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert  ---
I strongly encourage you to package the different parts (gtk, openbox,
gnome,...) of the theme separately. Have at look at the specs of the albatross
or bluebird themes for some inspiration.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E2wFFUyFim&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Package has some issues.  :(

#

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated


= 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.
[!]: 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.

 ---> there's no LICENSE / COPYING in tarball.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

 ---> see rpmlint's output below

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed

 ---> this is not even needed for el5.  remove it, please.

[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

 ---> there are issues inside spec-file.  see remarks in this report.

[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

 ---> ask upstream to include a file describing the actual license.

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

 ---> `%{__cp} -r`  should be `%{__cp} -pr` to preserve timestamps, too.

[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
 Note: %define requiring justification: %define theme Numix, %define
 author satya164

  

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557

Satyajit Sahoo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7HAho5RQTK&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #2 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
Oh. I forgot to mention, this is my first package and I need a sponser.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6xSTJtaWqk&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox

2013-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557



--- Comment #1 from Satyajit Sahoo  ---
Hi. It would be great if the theme can get into the Fedora repos. The theme
supports GTK 3.10 and Client Side Decorations, and hence compatible with Fedora
20.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RSiyeraoTq&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review