*** Bug 928842 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I can't do a formal review on this package, as it depends on drupal7-rpmbuild, which hasn't yet been made part of the Fedora repositories.  I'd be happy to review drupal7-rpmbuild if it's ready for a package review -- just let me know the bug number.

Hi Jared -- drupal7-rpmbuild is a sub-package of drupal7 >= 7.21-2

Ah, I hadn't noticed that.  I'll start my review now.

[ 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.

(In reply to comment #5)
> [ 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.

The license files are added to the downloads by the Drupal build process.  Project owners do not add these themselves.  The only way for the project owners to fix this is to push out a new version/release.  For this rpmlint "error" packagers usually only need to notify upstream of the "issue".  However, we could fix this 2 ways:
1) Include a separate LICENSE.txt file as an RPM source
2) Wait until version 5.2 is released by upstream (this would cause the Drupal build process to add the new license)



> [ 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

Good catch!!!  Question: Do you know if license files for each need to be included?



> 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.

I was just following the naming convention of "drupal7-theme-adaptivetheme" and "drupal7-theme-ninesixty" (the only other themes I know about in the repo).  However, I would much prefer taking "theme" out of the package name!  All Drupal machine names are guaranteed to be unique and modules and themes both share the same machine name namespace.  I wish there was a "drupal-devel" mailing list to ask ;)  Perhaps for this drupal7 theme we could stick with the drupal7-theme-zen pkg name to conform but also virtually provide drupal7-zen and then update the drupal8 packaging guidelines to specifically call out removing the "theme" part of the name?



I will clear the needinfo flag when I fix the license issue.

(In reply to comment #6)
> The license files are added to the downloads by the Drupal build process. 
> Project owners do not add these themselves.  The only way for the project
> owners to fix this is to push out a new version/release.

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.

> > [ 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
> 
> Good catch!!!  Question: Do you know if license files for each need to be
> included?

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.

Updated spec license and added upstream issue for license FSF issue (both noted as comments in the spec).



Spec URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal7-theme-zen.spec

SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-2.fc18.src.rpm

Package is approved.

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:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18

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

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc17

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

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc19

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

*** Bug 1103453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***