Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6700778
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2251826-bluecurve-icon-theme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06700778-bluecurve-icon-theme/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file gnome-mime-text-x-copying.png is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bluecurve-icon-theme
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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 gnome-mime-text-x-copying.png is not marked as
  %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bluecurve-icon-theme
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General
     Public License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]",
     "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated
     file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal
     address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete
     FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later". 2747 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora/2251826-bluecurve-icon-
     theme/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/16x16(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/16x16/apps(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/24x24(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/24x24/apps(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/32x32(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/32x32/apps(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/36x36(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/36x36/apps(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/48x48(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/48x48/apps(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/96x96(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/96x96/apps(fedora-logos),
     /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve(fedora-logos)
[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.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 128 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     bluecurve-cursor-theme
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: 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: bluecurve-icon-theme-8.0.2-28.fc40.noarch.rpm
          bluecurve-cursor-theme-8.0.2-28.fc40.noarch.rpm
          bluecurve-icon-theme-8.0.2-28.fc40.src.rpm
======================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqxh9yicz')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

bluecurve-icon-theme.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %find_lang
bluecurve-icon-theme.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
bluecurve-icon-theme.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
bluecurve-icon-theme.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: bluecurve-icon-theme-8.0.2.tar.bz2
bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-cursor-theme/COPYING
bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-icon-theme/COPYING
bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 1387680
bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 172532
bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/watch /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/08e8e1c95fe2fc01f976f1e063a24ccd:/usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/left_ptr_watch
Many other files-duplicate warnings
======================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 189 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 2.1 s ======================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-cursor-theme/COPYING
bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-icon-theme/COPYING
bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 1387680
bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 172532
bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/watch /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/08e8e1c95fe2fc01f976f1e063a24ccd:/usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/left_ptr_watch
More files duplicate warnings
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 185 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 2.6 s 



Requires
--------
bluecurve-icon-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    bluecurve-cursor-theme
    coreutils
    system-logos

bluecurve-cursor-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
bluecurve-icon-theme:
    bluecurve-icon-theme

bluecurve-cursor-theme:
    bluecurve-cursor-theme



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2251826
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Java, Python, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Many of the files are linked to their copies, so duplicates warning can be ignored.
b) COPYING file is GPL2, should GPL-2.0-or-later be used as the SPDX identifier?
c) Directory co-ownership seems ok
d) Maybe source files should be put in a pagure/GitLab repository owned by graphics team?

> a) Many of the files are linked to their copies, so duplicates warning can be ignored.
> b) COPYING file is GPL2, should GPL-2.0-or-later be used as the SPDX identifier?

I have fixed this in the spec and SRPM in-place.

> c) Directory co-ownership seems ok
> d) Maybe source files should be put in a pagure/GitLab repository owned by graphics team?

If someone has the upstream CVS repo somewhere that can be converted to Git, sure. A Red Hatter may be able to get access to that from the backups.

Ok. Approved.

Unretirement request: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11812

FEDORA-2023-02ed673fa9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-02ed673fa9

FEDORA-2023-56dbaa9437 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-56dbaa9437

FEDORA-2023-56dbaa9437 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-56dbaa9437 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-56dbaa9437

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-02ed673fa9 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-02ed673fa9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-02ed673fa9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-56dbaa9437 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-02ed673fa9 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days