https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

Brendan Early mymindstorm1@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mymindstorm1@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

--- Comment #2 from Iwicki Artur fedora@svgames.pl --- Forgot the guidelines link for the timestamps. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Fix your %changelog entries:

numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-2..git ['0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30', '0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742']

Package approved.

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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2760 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/numix-icon-theme-square /review-numix-icon-theme-square/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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30.noarch.rpm numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30.src.rpm numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-2..git ['0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30', '0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742'] numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Numix-Square-Light/16/panel ../../Numix-Light/16/panel numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Numix-Square-Light/22/panel ../../Numix-Light/22/panel numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Numix-Square-Light/24/panel ../../Numix-Light/24/panel numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Numix-Square/16/panel ../../Numix/16/panel numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Numix-Square/22/panel ../../Numix/22/panel numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Numix-Square/24/panel ../../Numix/24/panel numix-icon-theme-square.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |

--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- I have sponsored Brendan.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-053009379a

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8ea27d61f3

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e86e0cb4db

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-65ff4039d6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-10-17 23:53:40

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.