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.