Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1337434
Summary: | Review Request: flatpak - Application deployment framework for desktop apps | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David King <amigadave> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matthias Clasen <mclasen> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | alexl, mclasen, mrunge, nekohayo, ngompa13, package-review, panemade |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mclasen:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-05-28 03:31:39 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
David King
2016-05-19 08:25:39 UTC
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14165505 You're missing an extra Provides, as you need to provide both one with %_isa and one without. Provides: xdg-app-devel = %{version}-%{release} Provides: xdg-app = %{version}-%{release} I think that I have the Provides correct now, quoting from <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages>: * flatpak provides only xdg-app (no isa) because it's just some standalone programs ("Even though these programs may themselves be arch-specific, clients that run them should not care about their arch in most cases.") * flatpak-builder provides only xdg-app-builder, by the same reasoning as flatpak * the -libs and -devel packages provide only xdg-app-libs%{?_isa} and xdg-app-libs-devel%{_isa} ("Examples of packages that should explicitly provide only arch-specific Provides: include native code libraries or plug-ins and their associated -devel packages.") Does that seem right? The only problem is that "xdg-app-devel" != "xdg-app-devel(x86-64)". Because of that, someone who requires xdg-app-devel will not get the flatpak-devel package. It doesn't seem like this is a problem in practice, as "dnf repoquery --alldeps --whatrequires xdg-app-devel" gives no results (on rawhide). As far as I am aware, only gnome-software has a BuildRequires for xdg-app-devel, and that will be switched to flatpak as soon as the package is available in Fedora (and should probably be switched to a pkgconfig dependency anyway). If there is a general problem with the policy, then that probably needs to be brought up with the FPC. Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Updated SRPM URL for the new 0.6.1 release. Neal, can we wrap the review up ? We're waiting for the fedora packages to officially announce the new name and website, so it would be nice to have this resolved quickly. Taking this then rpmlint output: $ rpmlint flatpak-0.6.0-1.fc25.src.rpm flatpak.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. And here is the rpmlint output for the binary rpms: $ rpmlint flatpak-*x86_64.rpm flatpak.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed flatpak.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.Flatpak.SystemHelper.conf flatpak.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/flatpak.sh flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-libcontainer.c flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-console.h flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-console.c flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xdg-app-devel flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib flatpak-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libflatpak -> inflatable flatpak-libs.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/flatpak/bwrap flatpak-libs.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/libflatpak.so.0.600.0 flatpak-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings. The incorrect fsf addresses should probably be reported back to libglnx upstream, but I don't think that blocks the review. The missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot warning is just wrong. The code calls chdir right before and after chroot. checklist: package naming: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec legibility: excellent upstream sources: the latest tarball found at the source url is 0.6.0. need to clarify with Alex if tarball will continue to be on freedesktop.org or just on github buildable: ok excludearch: not needed buildrequires: ok locale handling: not needed ldconfig: ok system libraries: ok relocatable: no directory ownership: should own /usr/share/gdm/env.d or require gdm. Owning the directory is probably preferable in this case duplicate files: ok permissions: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: not applicable %doc content: ok static libraries: none development files: ok devel package deps: ok libtool archives: ok desktop file: not applicable file ownership: ok utf8 filenames: ok In summary: fix up directory ownership Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc25.src.rpm Updated SRPM URL for the new 0.6.2 release, and incorporating the env.d directory ownership fix. I took the tarball from github, but as you say, it would be good to know the canonical location for tarball releases. thanks, looks good now The canonical release is now on github, as everything else but the mailing list is there. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/flatpak flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24 gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8a483bb84c flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23 ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f9167af92a flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24, gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-8a483bb84c Note: Obsoleting Packages flatpak-libs.i686 0.6.2-1.fc24 updates-testing xdg-app-libs.x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc24 @fedora flatpak-libs.x86_64 0.6.2-1.fc24 updates-testing xdg-app-libs.x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc24 @fedora Obsoletes should be covering that. In fact, I got only the 64 bit version installed, unlike dnf mentioned getting both. flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23, ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-f9167af92a flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24, gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23, ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |