*** Bug 192524 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Needs work:
* No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag.
* Desktop file: vendor should be fedora (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#desktop)
* Desktop file: the Categories tag should contain Application and X-Fedora
  (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#desktop)
* The translation files are not properly tagged, use the %find_lang macro
  (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
* Scriptlets: missing "gtk-update-icon-cache" in %post and %postun (wiki:
ScriptletSnippets)
* Don't rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %prep, it breaks rpm -qi --short-circuit
* The "-n %{name}-%{version}" part in %setup is useless, it's already the 
  default
* export QTDIR=/usr/lib/qt-3.3/ should be replaced by:
    unset QTDIR && . %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/qt.sh
    export QTLIB=${QTDIR}/lib QTINC=${QTDIR}/include
  and it should be moved at the top of %build
* %configure should be moved in %build
* The BuildRoot must be cleaned at the beginning of %install
* Use make install, not make install-strip. RPM will strip the binaries by itself
* INSTALL is useless as a %doc, we're using RPM.
* %{_datadir}/*/*/*/* is a too generic, use %{_datadir}/icons/*/*/*/*.png
* The directory /usr/share/apps/knemo/ should be owned by the package

(In reply to comment #2)
> Needs work:
> * The directory /usr/share/apps/knemo/ should be owned by the package
> 

And it should be /usr/share/knemo/ not /usr/share/apps/knemo/

Per default, KDE applications use the /usr/share/apps instead of /usr/share.

Ugly :) But it seems you'r correct, sorry mybad.

Oh my god, I shouldn't have done this, but...

SPEC: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/SPECS/knemo.spec
SRPM: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/5/SRPMS/knemo-0.4.0-2.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #6)
> Oh my god, I shouldn't have done this, but...
> 

Indeed you shouldn't. As said I think its great you want to create more packages
for Fedora. I also understand that you've put time and energy into sparse and
thus don't want to just walk away just because somebodyelse is also working on
it*. But you can't just hijack thihs package let alone this review request. 

Please try to contact Richard June (rjune) and work together
with him on this.

You could do a comaintainer ship: Merge your 2 specfiles using the best parts of
both. Then one of you imports it into cvs and becomes the owner as specified in
owners.list, the others bugzilla email gets put in the initial-CC field of
owners.list, so that he gets all bugzilla mail related to the package 2, then
you can coordinate bugfixes for Bz bugs through BZ and other bugfixes / new
releases through private mail.


* been there done that myself, search the f-e-l mailing list archives on
monkey-bubble

(In reply to comment #7)
> > Oh my god, I shouldn't have done this, but...
> 
> Indeed you shouldn't. As said I think its great you want to create more 
packages
> for Fedora. I also understand that you've put time and energy into sparse 
and
> thus don't want to just walk away just because somebodyelse is also working 
on
> it*. But you can't just hijack thihs package let alone this review request. 

I'm not trying to overtake the package. Like I said in the other bug, I made a 
mistake and recognized that. But as I am exercising my package work, I made my 
last available SPECS and SRPMS for the maintainer (Richard June) to use it (I 
already did it before Aurelien duplicated my bug). Since my spec conforms with 
many things noted by the reviewer, he can use it freely to learn and get this 
package available in Extras on short-time.

> Please try to contact Richard June (rjune) and work 
together
> with him on this.

I sent an e-mail to him early talking about this, asking him if he still wants 
to maintain the package, and pointing my work so that if he wants to maintain, 
he can use a more-correct specfile ;) 

> You could do a comaintainer ship: Merge your 2 specfiles using the best 
parts of
> both. Then one of you imports it into cvs and becomes the owner as specified 
in
> owners.list, the others bugzilla email gets put in the initial-CC field of
> owners.list, so that he gets all bugzilla mail related to the package 2, 
then
> you can coordinate bugfixes for Bz bugs through BZ and other bugfixes / new
> releases through private mail.

It is a great idea, but if he wants to maintain the package and use my 
specfile, he can do it and I will not want any credits for it :P Just think of 
it as a replacement for my mistake (not looking in FE-NEW bug).

I'll wait an answer from him, and one more time: I am very sorry about this 
issue! This won't happen again.

Hugo, just to make it clear: I understand your motives and it's nice of you to
help Richard with this package. Except, you're giving him a fish, instead of
teaching him how to fish.

About the *.la files, the ones directly in /usr/lib/*.la are safe to remove, but
the others are often needed by KDE.

Hi guys, I received an e-mail by Richard June regarding this issue:

Message was signed with unknown key 0x0B7A5FDA3258B581.
The validity of the signature cannot be verified.
Status: No public key to verify the signature

  Actually, I'm not particularly interested in maintaining knemo. 
I would happily concede maintainership to you

-- 
Chuck Norris is a hack. MacGyver could build a gun from a paperclip and shoot 
Chuck Norris, then build a Stargate from a toaster and hide the body on some 
planet with no food whatsoever for when Chuck Norris wakes up.

Public Key available Here:
http://www.bravegnuworld.com/~rjune/pubkey.asc
Did I make your life better?
http://home.bravegnuworld.com/~rjune/appreciation.html
End of signed message

If you need other information I can forward the e-mail or ask him to send an 
e-mail or post here (I don't think it's necessary, but...).

Now I can use my specfile for this review, I would be glad if someone can 
review it to include quality software as soon as possible in Extras :) Thanks!

Needs work:
* Desktop files installed in %{_datadir}/applications/kde don't need the
"--vendor fedora" namespace, they already have kde (they are in the kde subdir).
* As a consequence, you don't need to rename them afterwards.

Notes:
* Why drop the keywords from the desktop file ?

(really) Minor:
* The Patch0 line and the "--add-category X-KDE-settings-network" are not
properly lined-up (tab instead of spaces)

Package updated:

Spec URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/SPECS/knemo.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/5/SRPMS/knemo-0.4.0-3.src.rpm

Changes:

- Removed vendor option from deskto-file-install (no renaming)

Notes:

> * Why drop the keywords from the desktop file ?

rpmbuild and desktop-file-install were complaining like hell about these 
keywords, so I got it out :)

Review for release 3:
* RPM name is OK
* Source knemo-0.4.0.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint looks OK
* File list looks OK
* Works fine

APPROVED

A couple of suggestions:
1) Since configure includes:
checking for ifconfig... /sbin/ifconfig
checking for iwconfig... /sbin/iwconfig

You'd best add:
# /sbin/iwconfig
BuildRequires: wireless-tools
# /sbin/ifconfig
BuildRequires: net-tools

2.  per the README:
IMPORTANT: KNemo is not an executable but an KDED service. Therefore
it has to be started using Control Center/KDE Components/Service Manager.

As such, this pkg probably ought to 
Requires: kdebase

3.  .desktop files
The categories are already properly set, the only one you should add is
--add-category=X-Fedora
(else it might accidentally show up in Gnome's menus somewhere).

4.  unowned %{_datadir}/apps/knemo, in %files, change
%{_datadir}/apps/knemo/eventsrc
to
%{_datadir}/apps/knemo

(In reply to comment #14)
> You'd best add:
> # /sbin/iwconfig
> BuildRequires: wireless-tools
> # /sbin/ifconfig
> BuildRequires: net-tools

Agreed, the detection is done at compile time, not run time. Thus if you don't
have them during the build, you won't be able to use them afterwards, even if
knemo only calls them and parses the output.

> As such, this pkg probably ought to 
> Requires: kdebase
> The categories are already properly set, the only one you should add is
> --add-category=X-Fedora

Agreed.
 
> 4.  unowned %{_datadir}/apps/knemo

I can't believe I missed that...

Thanks Rex.

Thanks Rex! I followed the tips in your review and created a new release. It 
is now imported and built. Closing. Thanks Aurelien and all.

As I realized this too late, I imported and built (with Comment #14 changes) 
before getting into FE-ACCEPT again (as in Comment #13). I hope a final review 
returns good :-) And sorry for my little mistake.

Package updated:

Spec URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/SPECS/knemo.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/5/SRPMS/knemo-0.4.0-4.src.rpm

Changes:

- Created BuildRequires for the ifconfig and iwconfig commands,
  as knemo utilizes it for monitoring.
- Removed addition of categories in desktop-file-install command

The changes are OK, APPROVED.

Ok, as I am not the original reporter of this bug, who can close it with 
resolution NEXTRELEASE? I can't.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: knemo
Updated Fedora Owners: faucamp.za


Hugo Cisneiros (the previous maintainer of this package) is AWOL. As per this
discussion on the f-e-l, I will be maintaining this package from now on:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-March/msg00025.html

An email was also sent by Hans de Goede (j. w. r. degoede <at> hhs (dot) nl) to
cvsadmins on 2007-03-02 with the final list of Hugo's
packages' new owners; I can forward this if necessary.

Please change owners.list and the ACLs to reflect this change? Thanks!