[Bug 1489178] Review Request: moka-icon-theme - Simple and modern icon theme with material design influences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489178

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2021-06-04 08:26:58



--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga  ---
Package imported and in Fedora repos, closing.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1489178] Review Request: moka-icon-theme - Simple and modern icon theme with material design influences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489178



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/moka-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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1489178] Review Request: moka-icon-theme - Simple and modern icon theme with material design influences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489178



--- Comment #5 from Allisson Azevedo  ---
Thank you :)

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1489178] Review Request: moka-icon-theme - Simple and modern icon theme with material design influences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489178

Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  
---
All OK,  accepted

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1489178] Review Request: moka-icon-theme - Simple and modern icon theme with material design influences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489178



--- Comment #3 from Allisson Azevedo  ---
Hello,

Package updated:

Spec URL:
https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/moka-icon-theme/moka-icon-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/moka-icon-theme/moka-icon-theme-5.3.6-1.fc26.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1489178] Review Request: moka-icon-theme - Simple and modern icon theme with material design influences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489178



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  
---
I forgot to paste the review:

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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: "CC by-sa (v4.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)",
 "Unknown or generated", "CC0", "*No copyright* LGPL (v3)", "*No
 copyright* CC by-sa (v4.0) GPL (v3 or later)". 14075 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/moka-icon-theme/review-moka-icon-
 theme/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in moka-icon-theme
[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 1 files.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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.
[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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag

[Bug 1489178] Review Request: moka-icon-theme - Simple and modern icon theme with material design influences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489178

Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  
---
Hello,

 - You shouldn't include 

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

   in %install

 - Use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}

 - the License should be CC-BY-SA and GPLv3 , as specified in the COPYING 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org