[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zukini-20120607-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #20 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #17) Everything looks fine now, thanks! APPROVED Thanks for your assistance and helpfulness. You forgot to include a link to the package you were asking me to review, so I chose the following one and made a review draft of it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827809 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-06-10 15:52:33 --- Comment #22 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- I'm closing this review request. Thank you all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zukini-20120607-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zukini-20120607-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #16 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- Hoping there are no other issues, here's the latest version of Zukini: Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.09/zukini.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.09/zukini-20120607-1.fc17.src.rpm ( RPM packages for Fedora 17: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.09/RPMs/ ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Everything looks fine now, thanks! APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #18 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #17) Everything looks fine now, thanks! APPROVED Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: zukini Short Description: The Zukini themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell, created by lassekongo83. Owners: odysseus Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #14 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Aha, thanks! Could you also patch gtk-3.0/gtk.css in both themes? You delete apps/unity.css but they're still referenced in gtk.css -- so launching any GTK3 app results in a noisy error on the console. Will approve once that is done -- sorry this is taking a while :/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #15 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #14) Aha, thanks! Could you also patch gtk-3.0/gtk.css in both themes? You delete apps/unity.css but they're still referenced in gtk.css -- so launching any GTK3 app results in a noisy error on the console. Damn! I didn't notice that! ;-) Will approve once that is done -- sorry this is taking a while :/ No problem: I don't mind waiting, if this means to improve quality of the package. Thanks again! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #13 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #12) This is the Zukitwo package, modified as suggested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=322028 As soon as I have enough time, I'm going to modify the Zukini package in the same way. And here is the updated Zukini package: Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.07/zukini.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.07/zukini-20120602-2.fc17.src.rpm ( RPM packages for Fedora 17: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.07/RPMs/ ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #9 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- I wrote to lassekongo83, the author of both Zukini and Zukitwo, about the font issue: [...] Both the GNOME Shell themes use Ubuntu font as default. Since this is not installed or available in the official repositories, which font do you suggest as an alternative? The theme automatically falls back to Droid Sans, which is quite good-looking, but, in my opinion, also Cantarell (the default font of GNOME 3) suits well. What do you think? [...] He answered: Droid sans is the best in my opinion after Ubuntu. Cantarell somehow looks too amateurish (or a little bit cartoonish) for my taste. Another alternative would be Liberation Sans. [...] So, now I think I should change font-family to the following: font-family: Droid Sans, Liberation Sans, sans-serif; and add google-droid-sans-fonts and liberation-sans-fonts as requirements. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Sounds good, yes (Liberation Sans is not Fedora's default sans font - though it's LibreOffice's - so adding it to the list is indeed necessary) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- per upstream's communication, I guess Liberation Sans will be in the list of font suggestions in the next update, which is good. Do we need having liberation-sans-fonts as a requirement though? We pull in google-droid-sans-fonts, users get the first choice (of the patched list) or the second choice of the original list -- if they want to change the font and look at the CSS file, surely they'd be able to install Liberation Sans by hand if they don't already have it. So I think patching the font-family line and depending on google-droid-sans-fonts is enough. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #12 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- This is the Zukitwo package, modified as suggested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=322028 As soon as I have enough time, I'm going to modify the Zukini package in the same way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #8 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #7) All previously raised issues addressed -- just one more thing (related to the comment Artyom made in the Zukitwo review): there are references to Ubuntu-specific things in both Zukini and Zukitwo that needs to be fixed: ➜ themes grep -r font-family: Ubuntu Zuki* Zukini/gnome-shell/gnome-shell.css: font-family: Ubuntu, Droid Sans, sans-serif; Zukitwo-Shell/gnome-shell/gnome-shell.css:font-family: Ubuntu, Droid Sans, sans-serif; ➜ themes grep -r unity Zuki* Zukini/gtk-3.0/gtk.css:@import url(apps/unity.css); Zukitwo/gtk-3.0/gtk.css:@import url(apps/unity.css); Zukitwo-Dark/gtk-3.0/gtk.css:@import url(apps/unity.css); The font reference is not so bad as it'd fall back to the next font in line (either Droid Sans -- available but not installed by default, or sans-serif) but the unity reference causes a warning to be outputted to the console every time a GTK3 app is started: (evince:6289): Gtk-WARNING **: Theme parsing error: gtk.css:60:30: Failed to import: Error opening file: No such file or directory So it's probably best to carry a patch that when applied would remove that line (in both themes), and apply that patch during the %setup phase. Thanks for your suggestions. The best solution for me would be removing Ubuntu from font-family (through a patch, as you suggest) and adding google-droid-fonts as a requirement. Do you agree? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #6 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #4) OK, here's the review. I think basically everything is in order -- *except* that upstream has again issued an update (on Saturday June 2nd), and DeviantArt reuses the same download URL, so the file size, rpmlint warning, and not packaging the latest version are all due to the same cause. Bump the spec's version field and include the latest zip archive, and I'll approve this. OK, I've updated everything to the latest release. (In reply to comment #5) Ah, and one more thing -- shouldn't the license be GPLv3, without the +? I couldn't find any reference to the or later clause in the documentation and other text files; if you do see any, please let me know. You're right: I've also changed the License entry to GPLv3 in the Spec file. Thank you! Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.03/zukini.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.03/zukini-20120602-1.fc17.src.rpm ( RPM packages for Fedora 17: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.03/RPMs/ ) P.S.: I'll try to review your package in the next days, but I can't promise you anything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- All previously raised issues addressed -- just one more thing (related to the comment Artyom made in the Zukitwo review): there are references to Ubuntu-specific things in both Zukini and Zukitwo that needs to be fixed: ➜ themes grep -r font-family: Ubuntu Zuki* Zukini/gnome-shell/gnome-shell.css:font-family: Ubuntu, Droid Sans, sans-serif; Zukitwo-Shell/gnome-shell/gnome-shell.css:font-family: Ubuntu, Droid Sans, sans-serif; ➜ themes grep -r unity Zuki* Zukini/gtk-3.0/gtk.css:@import url(apps/unity.css); Zukitwo/gtk-3.0/gtk.css:@import url(apps/unity.css); Zukitwo-Dark/gtk-3.0/gtk.css:@import url(apps/unity.css); The font reference is not so bad as it'd fall back to the next font in line (either Droid Sans -- available but not installed by default, or sans-serif) but the unity reference causes a warning to be outputted to the console every time a GTK3 app is started: (evince:6289): Gtk-WARNING **: Theme parsing error: gtk.css:60:30: Failed to import: Error opening file: No such file or directory So it's probably best to carry a patch that when applied would remove that line (in both themes), and apply that patch during the %setup phase. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #1 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- I'm already a Fedora packager; I'm packaging also the Zukitwo theme by the same author (please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 ). If you want to try the package on Fedora 17, here are the RPMs: GTK+2 theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.02/RPMs/zukini-gtk2-theme-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm GTK+3 theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.02/RPMs/zukini-gtk3-theme-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm Metacity theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.02/RPMs/zukini-metacity-theme-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm GNOME Shell theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukini/2012.06.02/RPMs/gnome-shell-theme-zukini-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||michel+...@sylvestre.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|michel+...@sylvestre.me Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- You're packaging another of my favorite themes :) Will review tomorrow -- I have a simple package for you to review as well, if you don't mind (will post the review request when I get home) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- (In reply to comment #2) Will review tomorrow -- I have a simple package for you to review as well, if you don't mind (will post the review request when I get home) Here's the review in question, it's for a simple Python library. Mostly a straightforward adaptation of the Python packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python but I had to jury-rig a %check section since upstream didn't provide any; it basically find every possible loadable module and try to load each of them - it'd fail if the dependencies are not complete. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664
--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me ---
OK, here's the review. I think basically everything is in order -- *except*
that upstream has again issued an update (on Saturday June 2nd), and DeviantArt
reuses the same download URL, so the file size, rpmlint warning, and not
packaging the latest version are all due to the same cause.
Bump the spec's version field and include the latest zip archive, and I'll
approve this.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint zukini-gtk3-theme-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint zukini-gtk2-theme-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint zukini-20120526-1.fc17.src.rpm
zukini.src: W: file-size-mismatch zukini_by_lassekongo83-d4ic1u2.zip = 196528,
http://www.deviantart.com/download/272660042/zukini_by_lassekongo83-d4ic1u2.zip
= 196521
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint gnome-shell-theme-zukini-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint zukini-metacity-theme-20120526-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/tmp/827664/zukini_by_lassekongo83-d4ic1u2.zip :
MD5SUM this package : 734247c5185d47c24bb6818c906a15b7
MD5SUM upstream package : 3f36ea80f97fc383c223a999ef104892
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final
[Bug 827664] Review Request: zukini - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- (In reply to comment #4) OK, here's the review. I think basically everything is in order -- *except* that upstream has again issued an update (on Saturday June 2nd), and DeviantArt reuses the same download URL, so the file size, rpmlint warning, and not packaging the latest version are all due to the same cause. Bump the spec's version field and include the latest zip archive, and I'll approve this. Ah, and one more thing -- shouldn't the license be GPLv3, without the +? I couldn't find any reference to the or later clause in the documentation and other text files; if you do see any, please let me know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
