[Bug 1489219] Review Request: pop-icon-theme - System76 Pop icon theme for Linux

2020-08-02 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219

Carl George 鸞  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 CC||c...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2020-08-02 18:38:56



--- Comment #5 from Carl George 鸞  ---
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8d32c408d0


-- 
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

[Bug 1489219] Review Request: pop-icon-theme - System76 Pop icon theme for Linux

2017-09-11 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pop-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 1489219] Review Request: pop-icon-theme - System76 Pop icon theme for Linux

2017-09-09 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219

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

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11)  
---
All good,  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 1489219] Review Request: pop-icon-theme - System76 Pop icon theme for Linux

2017-09-08 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219



--- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo  ---
Update:

Spec URL:
https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/pop-icon-theme/pop-icon-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gitlab.com/allisson/fedora-packages/raw/master/pop-icon-theme/pop-icon-theme-0.1.0-0.1.20170831git38ecdfe.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 1489219] Review Request: pop-icon-theme - System76 Pop icon theme for Linux

2017-09-07 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489219

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,

  - A git snapshot must include a commidtdate. And if it's a prerelease, the
Release tag should start at 0.1

%global commitdate 20170831

  And:

Release:0.1.%{commidate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}

  Then:

* Wed Sep  6 2017 Allisson Azevedo  -
0.1.0-0.1.20170831git38ecdfe


 - The License should be: LGPLv3 and CC-BY-SA , as described in both
LICENSE.cursors and LICENSE.icons

 - This is not needed in %install: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

 - You should use a simplified Source0, like this:

Source0:   
https://github.com/system76/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz



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: "GPL (v2)", "GPL (v3)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)", "Unknown or
 generated". 25685 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/pop-icon-theme/review-pop-
 icon-theme/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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 pop-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]: 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