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 1806537
Summary: | Review Request: gnome-flashback - GNOME Flashback session | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Artem <ego.cordatus> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 31 | CC: | alberts.muktupavels, package-review, yselkowi, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zebob.m:
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: | 2020-03-28 00:15:19 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1806544 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Artem
2020-02-24 13:31:55 UTC
I would really like to co-maintain this with Yaakov Selkowitz and appreciate his efforts to package it. Note: for fedora-review use fedora-review -b 1806537 -m fedora-31-x86_64 since this is for current GNOME 3.34 version. - You need to check the desktop file: desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop - You need to add SystemD user units scriptlets: - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in gnome-flashback See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros […] %post %systemd_user_post %{name}.service %preun %systemd_user_preun %{name}.service Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in gnome-flashback See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License GNU Lesser General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License (v2)", "GNU General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 243 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-flashback/review-gnome- flashback/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-flashback-3.34.2-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm gnome-flashback-debuginfo-3.34.2-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm gnome-flashback-debugsource-3.34.2-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm gnome-flashback-3.34.2-3.fc31.src.rpm gnome-flashback.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/gnome-flashback-nm-applet.desktop gnome-flashback.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/gnome-flashback-screensaver.desktop gnome-flashback.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/menus/gnome-flashback-applications.menu gnome-flashback.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-flashback gnome-flashback.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/gnome-flashback.desktop value "GNOME-Flashback;" for key "OnlyShowIn" in group "Desktop Entry" contains an unregistered value "GNOME-Flashback"; values extending the format should start with "X-" 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > - You need to check the desktop file: > > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop It cannot be validated because GNOME Flashback uses an still-unregistered desktop name/variant, nor can it be X-prefixed because it relies on the exact naming internally. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/desktop-file-utils/-/merge_requests/2 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-specs/-/merge_requests/5 Thanks everyone for help. Fixed, but successful validation desktop file and this new XDG entries still not possible in Fedora. https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-flashback.spec https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-flashback-3.34.2-4.fc31.src.rpm Package approved. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-flashback FEDORA-2020-5166ba8c57 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5166ba8c57 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5166ba8c57 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-e78e2c2583 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e78e2c2583 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e78e2c2583 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-e78e2c2583 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2020-5166ba8c57 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |