Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski <shawn.iwinski(a)gmail.com&gt; --- *** Bug 928842 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hke7U7P9Kb&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski <shawn.iwinski(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Jared -- drupal7-rpmbuild is a sub-package of drupal7 >= 7.21-2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IXvZOwFf6F&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(shawn.iwinski@gma | |il.com) --- Comment #5 from Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; --- [ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. [jsmith@hockey zen]$ rpmlint drupal7-theme-zen.spec drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm /home/jsmith/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm drupal7-theme-zen.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/drupal7/themes/zen/STARTERKIT/sass-extensions/zen-grids/LICENSE.txt 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Notice that the error is about the incorrect address for the FSF in the license file -- you should work with upstream to get that fixed. [ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [ BAD ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. I noticed that zen/js/html5.js and zen/js/html5-respond.js are licensed as both MIT and GPLv2, but the spec file only lists the GPL license [ O K ] 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 must be included in %doc. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ O K ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [jsmith@hockey zen]$ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz ; curl -s -o - http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz | md5sum - 05dfedea459f99b8fdeaee06e8714749 /home/jsmith/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz 05dfedea459f99b8fdeaee06e8714749 - [ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [ O K ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [ O K ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [ O K ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [ O K ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [ O K ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ O K ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [ N/A ] 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: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ O K ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ O K ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ O K ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [ N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. I'm going to hold off approving the package until you've had a chance to look at the license in those two javascript files I mentioned. Also, I was wondering if there was any precedence for putting the word "theme" in the package name. The other Drupal modules simply have the name of the project -- basically the part after drupal.org/project/ in the module URL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EXxLSgJ4TR&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #7 from Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to comment #6) That's fine -- I'm willing to let it go for now, as long as upstream knows about the issue and will address it in a future release. It's not a critical issue, but something that should be addressed. I wouldn't worry about including a license file for a one-file Javascript library. (And, just for the sake of completeness -- I don't think we need to package these two javascript libraries separately, at least until the Javascript packaging guidelines are ratified by the FPC.) I'd just make sure that the license line in the .spec file mentions the other licenses, and maybe even put a comment in there that the theme itself is GPL, but the two Javascript libraries are dual-licensed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wnMc8HVfyC&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #9 from Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ehfhMtCqzI&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 Shawn Iwinski <shawn.iwinski(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Shawn Iwinski <shawn.iwinski(a)gmail.com&gt; --- THANKS for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: drupal7-theme-zen Short Description: A powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme Owners: siwinski asrob Branches: f17 f18 f19 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wKao8yhtJp&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fnoN8EVsDh&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0maaKwOea3&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XYj4PisXLp&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9sln1WavZ5&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=58fBJZIHnr&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc1 |drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 |7 | --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=trUwYGYXch&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 Peter Borsa <peter.borsa(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |peter.borsa(a)gmail.com --- Comment #23 from Peter Borsa <peter.borsa(a)gmail.com&gt; --- *** Bug 1103453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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