Bug 2031721

Sometimes naming is a subtle question, since Python library packages sometimes provide associated command-line tools, and application packages sometimes provide Python APIs.

In this case, I think this is clearly an application package. The package in %{python3_sitelib} appears to be only for support of the application, and doesn’t appear to have a documented public API.

This package would therefore better be named “shybrid”, in accordance with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_application_naming.

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #1)
> Sometimes naming is a subtle question, since Python library packages
> sometimes provide associated command-line tools, and application packages
> sometimes provide Python APIs.
> 
> In this case, I think this is clearly an application package. The package in
> %{python3_sitelib} appears to be only for support of the application, and
> doesn’t appear to have a documented public API.
> 
> This package would therefore better be named “shybrid”, in accordance with
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_application_naming.

Thank you for the review @code 

Here is the updated srpm/spec file 

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid-0.4.3-1.fc36.src.rpm

I’ll take this review.

Would you consider a less generic Summary than “Graphical user interface”? Maybe “GUI for generating hybrid ground-truth spiking data”?

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

  (OK: rpmautospec)

- Summary is extremely generic. Consider something like:

    Summary:        GUI for generating hybrid ground-truth spiking data

- Based on the copyright statement in the source file headers, the License
  should be “GPLv3+” rather than “GPLv3”

- Since this is a GUI application, you MUST have a .desktop file. You can write
  this yourself, but you should also offer it upstream.

  See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files.

- You should also ask upstream about adding an AppData file
  (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/),
  although you may package shybrid without one.

  The guidelines say you can add this downstream until/unless upstream adds it,
  but I find that isn’t very practical, since the description text and any
  screenshots need to be made available under one of a handful of extremely
  permissive licenses (CC0 and similar), and screenshots need to be hosted at
  publicly-available URLs. This is all pretty easy for upstreams but kind of
  hard to properly satisfy downstream.

- Since upstream provides no tests, you must perform some kind of basic “smoke
  test” in %check instead. Try:

    %check
    %pyproject_check_import

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests

  This will necessitate adding

    BuildRequires:  python3-matplotlib-qt5

- You can replace

    find . -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#![  ]*\/usr\/bin\/env.*$/ d' {} 2>/dev/null ';'

  with

    %py3_shebang_fix .

- I don’t think you need this, since (1) there is no public API, (2) the
  importable package is not called shybrid anyway:

    Provides:       python3-shybrid = %{version}-%{release}

  Note that Provides for “python3.10dist(shybrid)
  = 0.4.3” and “python3dist(shybrid) = 0.4.3” will still be generated based on the
  setuptools metadata
  (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Machine-readable-provides)

  If you do want to Provide python3-shybrid, which would be acceptable even
  though I don’t think it’s necessary, then you should do it like this instead:

    %py_provides python3-shybrid

  See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_provides_and_requirements.


===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 28
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/licensecheck.txt

     Based on the copyright statement in the source file headers, the License
     should be “GPLv3+” rather than “GPLv3”

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.

     (Right now this is empty, but your spec file has %autochangelog, and I am
     assuming it will be OK on import.)

[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.
[-]: 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.

     If the documentation were built, a -doc subpackage would be required.

[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]: 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 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 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)

     (OK: rpmautospec)

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/shybrid/shybrid-0.4.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 24e11b5e8b875ca6bb438a34e1181f53f82be23bdc5dad4b58aa4065644ccaad
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24e11b5e8b875ca6bb438a34e1181f53f82be23bdc5dad4b58aa4065644ccaad


Requires
--------
shybrid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-matplotlib-qt5
    python3.10dist(matplotlib)
    python3.10dist(numpy)
    python3.10dist(pyqt5)
    python3.10dist(pyyaml)
    python3.10dist(scipy)



Provides
--------
shybrid:
    python3-shybrid
    python3.10dist(shybrid)
    python3dist(shybrid)
    shybrid



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/srpm/shybrid.spec	2021-12-17 14:38:54.184319256 -0500
+++ /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/srpm-unpacked/shybrid.spec	2021-12-16 09:50:51.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           shybrid
 Version:        0.4.3
@@ -48,3 +57,3 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
\ No newline at end of file
+


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2031721
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, R, C/C++, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

shybrid.src: W: strange-permission shybrid.spec 600
shybrid.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shybrid
shybrid.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
shybrid.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s

Thank you for the review @code 

Here is the updates

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid-0.4.3-2.fc36.src.rpm

I replaced

    find . -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#![  ]*\/usr\/bin\/env.*$/ d' {} 2>/dev/null ';'

with

    %py3_shebang_fix .

but had lint errors, so i kept it at  

    find . -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#![  ]*\/usr\/bin\/env.*$/ d' {} 2>/dev/null ';'

and lint had 0 errors

I didn’t read what you’re doing with find and sed carefully enough. You’re simply removing all shebangs from Python files, because the upstream package has useless shebangs in its package modules.

This is the right thing to do, and %py3_shebang_fix would have been the wrong thing to do, because it just fixes the shebangs so they do not use /usr/bin/env.

Even better is to fix it *and* report the useless shebangs upstream, as I have done here: https://github.com/jwouters91/shybrid/pull/13

Full re-review to follow…

Thanks for packaging this. The package is APPROVED; however, please see and consider the remaining recommendations in the “Issues” section below.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
  (OK: rpmautospec)

- You should also ask upstream about adding an AppData file
  (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/),
  although you may package shybrid without one.

  The guidelines say you can add this downstream until/unless upstream adds it,
  but I find that isn’t very practical, since the description text and any
  screenshots need to be made available under one of a handful of extremely
  permissive licenses (CC0 and similar), and screenshots need to be hosted at
  publicly-available URLs. This is all pretty easy for upstreams but kind of
  hard to properly satisfy downstream.

- I have a few nit-picks with the desktop file:

    [Desktop Entry]
    Name=Shybrid
    Comment=Shybrid
    Exec=shybrid
    Icon=shybrid
    Type=Application
    Categories=Graphics

  Since there is no icon installed (and no candidate image available in the
  upstream sources), the “Icon=shybrid” line should be removed.

  Since upstream refers to the program as SHYBRID in documentation, the Name
  should be “SHYBRID” instead of “Shybrid”.

  Since the Comment is meant to be a useful description for a tooltip, it
  should probably be the same thing you have in the spec file’s Summary field.

  Since the purpose of the program is not image processing, I think “Science”
  would be a much better category than “Graphics”.

  While the package can be approved and maintained indefinitely with a
  downstream desktop file like this, you should still ask upstream to provide a
  .desktop file and icon. They don’t have to be installed by setuptools; they
  just need to be in the sdist to be useful.

===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 28
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/20211219/2031721-shybrid/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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:
[-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)

     (OK: rpmautospec)

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/shybrid/shybrid-0.4.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 24e11b5e8b875ca6bb438a34e1181f53f82be23bdc5dad4b58aa4065644ccaad
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24e11b5e8b875ca6bb438a34e1181f53f82be23bdc5dad4b58aa4065644ccaad


Requires
--------
shybrid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-matplotlib-qt5
    python3.10dist(matplotlib)
    python3.10dist(numpy)
    python3.10dist(pyqt5)
    python3.10dist(pyyaml)
    python3.10dist(scipy)



Provides
--------
shybrid:
    application()
    application(shybrid.desktop)
    python3.10dist(shybrid)
    python3dist(shybrid)
    shybrid



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/20211219/2031721-shybrid/srpm/shybrid.spec	2021-12-19 00:08:09.915901603 -0500
+++ /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/20211219/2031721-shybrid/srpm-unpacked/shybrid.spec	2021-12-18 13:46:29.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 2;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           shybrid
 Version:        0.4.3
@@ -54,3 +63,7 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
\ No newline at end of file
+* Sat Dec 18 2021 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1> 0.4.3-2
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Thu Dec 16 2021 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1> 0.4.3-1
+- initial build


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2031721
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, R, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

shybrid.src: W: strange-permission shybrid.spec 600
shybrid.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shybrid
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s

The package was already in Upstream Release Monitoring (Anitya). I have added a distribution mapping for Fedora: https://release-monitoring.org/project/45180/

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8)
> The package was already in Upstream Release Monitoring (Anitya). I have
> added a distribution mapping for Fedora:
> https://release-monitoring.org/project/45180/

Greetings @code 

Thank you for the review, I will ask upstream about adding an AppData file and a .desktop file. Also i will make the changes you pointed out in the .desktop file and drop the updates here.

Also i wish to ask if the package being in upstream release monitoring will stop me from requesting a new repo for shybrid, seeing it has been approved.

(In reply to Vanessa Christopher from comment #9)
> (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8)
> > The package was already in Upstream Release Monitoring (Anitya). I have
> > added a distribution mapping for Fedora:
> > https://release-monitoring.org/project/45180/
> 
> Greetings @code 
> 
> […]
> Also i wish to ask if the package being in upstream release monitoring will
> stop me from requesting a new repo for shybrid, seeing it has been approved.

It only means that—provided you don’t change the “Monitoring Status” to “Disabled” on the project page—a Bugzilla ticket will be filed to notify you any time a new release is available to package. You’ve probably seen a lot of these on other projects already.

Greetings @code thank you for your guidelines 

I have updated the .desktop file and included an appdata file

I also wrote upstream about adding it https://github.com/jwouters91/shybrid/issues/14 and I was advised to make a contribution and open a PR but am not sure where to keep the files after forking the project should I just place them in the root directory?

updates

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid-0.4.3-5.fc36.src.rpm

(In reply to Vanessa Christopher from comment #11)
> Greetings @code thank you for your guidelines 
> 
> I have updated the .desktop file and included an appdata file

Thanks. The package is already approved, of course, but I’m happy to take a look.

The AppData XML file looks basically reasonable at a glance, except for the ID, which needs to be a unique reverse-DNS style string[1] that should correspond to a domain owned by the upstream project/maintainer. This is one of the reasons it’s hard to correctly add this file downstream. You might ask upstream about an appropriate ID.

The AppData XML file is required to be named to match the ID, and once there is an AppData file, the .desktop file also needs to be renamed to match.

Technically, the description text is *not* available under CC0, because it’s copied from the upstream repository, which is GPLv3+—another reason I don’t usually try to add AppData files downstream-only even though the guidelines suggest trying. (I’m not interested in leaning on arguments about triviality and creative content in very short descriptive texts, and whether that might affect their copyright status.) This means you can’t technically use the upstream description in the AppData file at all.

[1] https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Metadata.html#tag-id-generic

> I also wrote upstream about adding it
> https://github.com/jwouters91/shybrid/issues/14 and I was advised to make a
> contribution and open a PR but am not sure where to keep the files after
> forking the project should I just place them in the root directory?

There is absolutely no standard for this. I have seen at least the following, in roughly descending order of popularity,

- data/
- repository root
- extras/

and almost every upstream maintainer will have their own opinion. Fortunately, it’s easy to adjust a PR to upstream’s preference.

Thank you Ben for the information. I'll remove the downstream AppData File and wait for a copy from upstream. Mean while i'll proceed with the remaining bits of submitting the package.

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/shybrid/raw/main/f/shybrid-0.4.3-6.fc36.src.rpm

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/shybrid

FEDORA-2021-daece9723c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-daece9723c

FEDORA-2021-09208a6e13 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-09208a6e13

FEDORA-2021-daece9723c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-daece9723c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-daece9723c

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

FEDORA-2021-09208a6e13 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-09208a6e13 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-09208a6e13

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

FEDORA-2021-daece9723c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-09208a6e13 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.