%ghost %{_datadir}/icons/*/icon-theme.cache

Does this actually work? I remember having trouble with that in gnome-colors-icon-theme.

What problem did you encounter? I had no issue.

The asterisk is literal:

$ rpm -qlp papirus-icon-theme-20180816-1.fc30.noarch.rpm | grep theme.cache
/usr/share/icons/*/icon-theme.cache

http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html

The way to achieve this, is to use the %ghost directive. By adding this directive to the line containing a file, RPM will know about the ghosted file, but will not add it to the package. However it still needs to be in the buildroot.

So maybe you need to touch the files.

It should be fixed now, I touched the files and expanded the glob in %files.


rpm -qlp papirus-icon-theme-20180816-1.fc28.noarch.rpm | grep theme.cache
/usr/share/icons/Papirus-Adapta-Nokto/icon-theme.cache
/usr/share/icons/Papirus-Adapta/icon-theme.cache
/usr/share/icons/Papirus-Dark/icon-theme.cache
/usr/share/icons/Papirus-Light/icon-theme.cache
/usr/share/icons/Papirus/icon-theme.cache
/usr/share/icons/ePapirus/icon-theme.cache

I can take this. The project was on my TODO since a long time. :)

Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/papirus-icon-theme.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc30.src.rpm

New release.

APPROVED.

In assumption, you add a comment about license breakdown and drop scriptlets with gtk-update-icon-cache in Fedora, for both see below.

Sorry for the long delay here.

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file text-x-copying.svg is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
=> IGNORE


===== 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* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public
     License (v4.0)", "Unknown or generated". 44782 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-
     review/1635367-papirus-icon-theme/licensecheck.txt
=> OK, see AUTHORS file

[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
=> OK, please can you add a comment with a hint to the AUTHORS file for the multiple licenses explained there?

[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 papirus-icon-theme
=> We don't need these any more in Fedora because rpm does it with triggers.
=> In case of EPEL, these scriptlets are still needed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Icon_Cache

[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 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.
[x]: 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: papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc30.src.rpm
papirus-icon-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colorscheme -> color scheme, color-scheme, colorless
papirus-icon-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colorscheme -> color scheme, color-scheme, colorless
papirus-icon-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ePapirus -> Epicurus
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
papirus-icon-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colorscheme -> color scheme, color-scheme, colorless
papirus-icon-theme.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/PapirusDevelopmentTeam/papirus-icon-theme <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
papirus-icon-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh



Provides
--------
papirus-icon-theme:
    papirus-icon-theme



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/PapirusDevelopmentTeam/papirus-icon-theme/archive/20181007/papirus-icon-theme-20181007.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0a236cf23237f05ff7a4a6bf4698055004a67a120e34399be47d4cfaa69b7ccc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0a236cf23237f05ff7a4a6bf4698055004a67a120e34399be47d4cfaa69b7ccc


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1635367
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

> => We don't need these any more in Fedora because rpm does it with triggers.

Well I suppose we don't need to do it when a package installs to hicolor etc, but for icon themes, this i still needed. You can however set the triggers, so others can install into your dirs, see for example 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-colors-icon-theme/blob/master/f/gnome-colors-icon-theme.spec

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #9)
> > => We don't need these any more in Fedora because rpm does it with triggers.
> 
> Well I suppose we don't need to do it when a package installs to hicolor
> etc, but for icon themes, this i still needed. You can however set the
> triggers, so others can install into your dirs, see for example 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-colors-icon-theme/blob/master/f/
> gnome-colors-icon-theme.spec

fully agree here.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/papirus-icon-theme

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d5f086356e

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c0a2ab0391

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-de244a1f9b

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.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-d5f086356e

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-de244a1f9b

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-c0a2ab0391

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

papirus-icon-theme-20181007-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.