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 452395
Summary: | Review Request: lxlauncher - Open source replacement for Asus Launcher of the EeePC | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert Scheck <redhat> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, ma, notting, redhat-bugzilla, sundaram |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | redhat:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-07-27 00:36:45 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 505781 |
Description
Christoph Wickert
2008-06-22 02:17:48 UTC
Robert, I'm CC'ing you beause I know you have an EeePC, so maybe you can help me with this review... ;) OK | MUST: rpmlint is clean OK | MUST: The package must be named according to the Package… OK | MUST: The spec file name must match the base package… OK | MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines… OK | MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved… OK | MUST: The License field in the package spec file must. OK | MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK | MUST: The package must successfully compile and build… OK | MUST: All build dependencies must be listed… OK | MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly… OK | MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared… OK | MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable… OK | MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates OK | MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files OK | MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK | MUST: Each package must have a %clean section OK | MUST: Each package must consistently use macros OK | MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible N/A | MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc OK | MUST: If a package includes something as %doc… 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: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must… N/A | MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix… N/A | MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must… OK | MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, NOK | MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include… Shouldn't there be a .desktop file? How am I suppose to test the functionality of this software or launch it? NOK | MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already Why are you claiming ownership of %{_datadir}/desktop-directories/*.directory? These are owned by redhat-menus package already. OK | MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST… OK | MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK | SHOULD: If the source package does not include license - | SHOULD: The description and summary section … translations… OK | SHOULD: The package builds in mock - | SHOULD: The package builds on all supported architectures OK | SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package… N/A | SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane… N/A | SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should usually require base… N/A | SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on… OK | SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of shortlist… OK | MUST: All build dependencies must be listed… Robert, do you want to do the official review? (In reply to comment #2) > > Shouldn't there be a .desktop file? How am I suppose to test the functionality > of this software or launch it? By simply running it from a terminal?? Works fine in _all_ desktops I've seen. lxlauncher is supposed to be started by lxsession or whatever and running all the time. Think of something like xfdesktop, it has no launcher ether. I could however add a launcher to /etc/xdg/autostart, but this should IMO be disabled by default. My plan is to add a special EeePC Session to lxsession-lite in which lxlauchner will be started automatically. > NOK | MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already > > Why are you claiming ownership of > %{_datadir}/desktop-directories/*.directory? > > These are owned by redhat-menus package already. AFAICS I'm not owning any other files but my own, %{_datadir}/desktop-directories/*.directory seems correct: $ rpm -qf /usr/share/desktop-directories/ filesystem-2.4.13-1.fc9.i386 gnome-menus-2.22.2-1.fc9.i386 $ rpm -ql lxlauncher /usr/bin/lxlauncher /usr/share/desktop-directories/Learn.directory /usr/share/desktop-directories/Math.directory /usr/share/desktop-directories/Play.directory /usr/share/desktop-directories/Science.directory /usr/share/desktop-directories/Work.directory /usr/share/doc/lxlauncher-0.2 ... The package drops 5 more Menus in there and so far the names do not conflikt are not in redhat-menus or in gnome-menus, so there is no collision. Nevertheless I can install them prefixed with lxde-* or alike to avoid problems long term. > By simply running it from a terminal?? Works fine in _all_ desktops I've seen. > > lxlauncher is supposed to be started by lxsession or whatever and running all > the time. Think of something like xfdesktop, it has no launcher ether. I could > however add a launcher to /etc/xdg/autostart, but this should IMO be disabled > by default. I didn't yet have a look to xfdesktop or equivalent things, but from my current point of view, I would agree with you. > AFAICS I'm not owning any other files but my own, > %{_datadir}/desktop-directories/*.directory seems correct: For me, it seems also correct what is currently owned. %{_datadir}/desktop- directories/*.directory refers to all *.directory files coming from the "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT". Rahul, please clarify. > The package drops 5 more Menus in there and so far the names do not conflikt > are not in redhat-menus or in gnome-menus, so there is no collision. > Nevertheless I can install them prefixed with lxde-* or alike to avoid > problems long term. I would see prefixing as optional SHOULD, this is IMHO up to you. I would prefer a launcher. I don't have a eeepc with me to test right now but running it on the command seems to just hang in GNOME # lxlauncher I don't see anything after this. Yes, a prefix would be good to avoid conflicts. The ownership otherwise seems correct. Robert Scheck. this review is still officially assigned to you. Just a quick note that I figured out how lxlauncher works. So do you still think it needs a launcher? IMO a launcher in the menu is nonsens, nobody will launch a lauchner from the menu just to launch another app. The only thing that makes sense to me is /etc/xdg/autostart, but I'm not sure how to handle that for all desktops/window managers, because some do support /etc/xdg/autostart but do not implement "Hidden=true". Okay, let's do the official review: I checked all my points which are mostly equivalent to that ones already mentioned, so I'll not re-post my list. From my side I've no complaints at all. > NOK | MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include… I agree with the requestor that no *.desktop is required, doesn't make sense here. Maybe the hint for the autostart can be put into a README-FEDORA or a similar file, but per default enabled when maybe some/not all desktops/window managers are supporting it, is not ideal. > NOK | MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already I can't see any issue here, the result in the built RPM package looks fine. APPROVED. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: lxlauncher Short Description: Open source replacement for Asus Launcher of the EeePC Owners: cwickert Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. lxlauncher-0.2-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9 lxlauncher-0.2-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8 Thanks for the review, Robert. Closing. lxlauncher-0.2-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. lxlauncher-0.2-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: lxlauncher New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: cwickert cvs done. |