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.