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 1397692
Summary: | Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator - Configure the top bar and Activities button in GNOME Shell | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Audrey Yeena Toskin <audrey> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 24 | CC: | package-review, zbyszek |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zbyszek:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | noarch | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-03-22 19:21:46 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Audrey Yeena Toskin
2016-11-23 08:12:18 UTC
Please run fedora-review on this ticket. It notices a few issues. Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator/raw/master/gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.spec SRPM URL: https://andrew.tosk.in/tmp/gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-52-1.fc24.src.rpm The Source0 URL has changed. There was also a new upstream release, so I bumped the packaged version. Unless I'm missing something, I believe this should take care of any last issues. The "Issues" section in review.txt does say this: Issues: ======= - glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema ...But, uh, I dunno, *is* that a problem? Doesn't really sound like an "issue" to me, just stating the fact that the package has gschema files. If the point is that I'm not supposed to include the %posttrans scriptlets mentioned in the linked Fedora Wiki page, then I'm pretty sure that that scriptlet already does not exist. This package includes no Makefile, and the gschema scriptlet does not appear anywhere in my spec. I don't see the glib-compile-schemas command anywhere in my spec repository, nor in the package source files. I dunno if I'm ever supposed to post review.txt myself, but this is the status as far as I can tell. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema ===== 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: convenience.js is a BSD-licensed file borrowed from a project by Giovanni Campagna, but the complte Activities Configurator package is definitely GPLv2. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. **NOTE: None, unless you count convenience.js? This is a very small script that I've seen many extensions freely drop in. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. **NOTE: The source does not include a changelog. The spec changelog section is correct, though, I believe. [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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. [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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: 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. [!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. **NOTE: I don't see anything in the wiki about how to do this, and I don't know languages other than English well enough to provide translations myself. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. **NOTE: I don't think this is applicable, since the package doesn't require compilation. [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: gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-52-1.fc25.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-52-1.fc25.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/activities-config@nls1729/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/nls1729-extensions.mo gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/activities-config@nls1729/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/nls1729-extensions.mo gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/activities-config@nls1729/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/nls1729-extensions.mo gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/activities-config@nls1729/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/nls1729-extensions.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell gnome-shell-extension-common gnome-tweak-tool Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator: gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator Source checksums ---------------- https://extensions.gnome.org/extension-data/activities-config@nls1729.v52.shell-extension.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 63b771820d55fe42a9ddc874073f4212bc9df182c91c5c75f75f9a810ab7a4d1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 63b771820d55fe42a9ddc874073f4212bc9df182c91c5c75f75f9a810ab7a4d1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --url https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397692 Buildroot used: fedora-25-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 * Updated to upstream version 53 * Better locale detection, files moved to system directory * Moved gschema file to system directory * Downgrade GNOME Tweak Tool from a Require to a Recommend Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator/raw/master/gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.spec SRPM URL: https://andrew.tosk.in/tmp/gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc26.src.rpm (Note: the spec file is now inaccessible, it says "deploy in progress". Fortunately I had it open is a tab.) Without further ado, + package name is OK + license is acceptable (GPLv2) + license is specified correctly + builds and installs OK + latest version + Provides/Requires/BuildRequires look correct + scriptlets are OK rpmlint: gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator.src:67: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 67) Package is APPROVED. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bd617872f5 gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-51607832c9 gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-32b50bc8e2 gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-32b50bc8e2 gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.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-2017-bd617872f5 gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-51607832c9 gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gnome-shell-extension-activities-configurator-53-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |