[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #14 from Tonet Jallo --- Yes, i will search new packages soon, thank you for review Jonathan -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2015-05-25 06:53:19 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Underwood --- OK, if this is dead upstream, I think we should not continue with the review. Still I hope it was a useful learning exercise and you'll submit more packages in the future. -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #12 from Tonet Jallo --- I was busy with my work, but i will come back to this job, I have bad notices, the upstream developer said me he abandoned the maintenance to this package, I think that mean that bug should be closed. -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Underwood --- Hi Tonet - no problem. It's always a bit of a challenge to package a very young piece of software, but hopefully the upstream developer will be open to working with us on getting it integrated. I'll be travelling for the next week, so if you do upload a new package, I may not get to looking at it until I return. When I get back, if there's still problems with CFLAGS, I'll help with knocking together a CMake file to clean up the build process and allow us to set CFLAGS properly. -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #10 from Tonet Jallo --- Ok Jonathan, sorry if I still have errors, I still have problems with english, but i'm learning. I will communicate with the developer for work in that. Thank you again Jonathan. Have a nice day (or night). -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood --- I have looked a bit more closely at the Makefile included with the project (which is a bit of a mess). Really, I think the best way to set CFLAGS reliably is to break the build vala compilation down into two steps - first run valac with the -c option to produce the c code, and then call gcc to compile the c-code. You'll need to patch the makefile to do this. Presently the way CFLAGS is used to provide options to the vala compiler is sub-optimal. I would urge you to work with the upstream maintainer to move to a sensible build system (autotools or cmake) rather than this handcrafted and buggy Makefile. -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Underwood --- Also, your spec file changelog entries need to be more informative than simply "Correcting some spec file issues". For example, you've dropped a patch - why so? That sort of information is very important in the changelog if others are going to help maintain your package. And, in particular, it would help me to review your package changes. -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Underwood --- Just a cursory look at the Spec file tells me you've not addressed all of the issues I raised previously. Eg. The summary still has a "." at the end. You've not done anything about ensuring the compiler flags are set correctly. Please go over the list once more and ensure you've tackled all of the issues I raised before. -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #6 from Tonet Jallo --- Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/gtk-theme-config.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/gtk-theme-config-0.1-3.fc21.src.rpm Description: Hi, I corrected the issues, but i still having error with the license file, i think fedora-review still consider the %doc macro and i used the %licence macro. And, I have also a error in rpmlint section with the appdata file, but it uses the validate-relax parameter and it works. Thanks for the review. Greetings. Fedora Account System Username: tonet666p -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood --- In addition to all the points above, you also need to deal with installing the appdata file that's included in the source tarball: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData Unfortunately the makefile doesn't install that file. -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Underwood ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in gtk-theme-config
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
See that page - you're missing the postrans part.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Remove the BR for gcc.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
This needs fixing.
- All patches should have a comment linking to an upstream bug report
or otherwise justifying why they're needed. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
- The %autosetup macro makes application of patches simpler andcould
be used here. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25autosetup
- Various rpmlint issues - details below.
Various issues are also detailed below - please read carefully.
= 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. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1199829-gtk-theme-
config/licensecheck.txt
gtk-theme-config.vala has no license specified - you need to work with
upstream to clarify this.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
That directory is owned by the filesystem package, but I don't think
it's necessary to Require that package
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
CFLAGS isn't being set all all by the make file. You need something like:
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
However, it's not obvious to me how valac is calling gcc - there's no output in
build.log from gcc.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See above.
[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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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
%{nam
[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #3 from Tonet Jallo --- Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/gtk-theme-config.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/gtk-theme-config-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Hi, I made a little change on %licence macro. Check it please. Here is the Koji scratch build result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9392960 Greetings Fedora Account System Username: tonet666p -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #2 from Tonet Jallo --- Koji Scratch Build results: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9239146 -- 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 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829
--- Comment #1 from Tonet Jallo ---
fedora-review result
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in gtk-theme-config
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: 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. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tnt/rpmbuild/1199829-gtk-theme-
config/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[ ]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[ ]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packa
