https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
--- Comment #35 from nicolas.vieville@univ-valenciennes.fr --- (In reply to comment #31) Jeff,
Thank you very much for your review and your advice. This make this package more conform regarding Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Sorry for my late response, reasons are in comment #33 beginning.
Will follow up with the source github url in another comment. It does appear that I was wrong about find -exec simplifying the translations, so do as you please.
You were right about find -exec, the translations are now in line with the "oneliner" directive and probably are much stronger in catching errors, although a little bit difficult to read. I have kept them.
Package Review
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [?]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. NOTE: the versioning may change based on github url changes.
I agree. Do you think that git commit numbers should be replaced by date? About version number, I try to follow upstream numbers and Packaging Guidelines. Any advice on resolving this point would be appreciated.
[X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: MUST 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 %doc. [-]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly. [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [?]: MUST Package installs properly. (trusting you here)
I've followed previous Review Request for this piece of software, and the Fedora existing gnome-shell extensions method to get where and how to install this package components. As gnome-shell extensions actually can be installed in users account tree, but this one is globally installed like Fedora provided extensions, I hope this is the good way.
[X]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. NOTE: is python3-gobject necessary? I have the extension installed on my system and that package is not installed.
Sorry, I missed it. It was necessary with python for settings in the previous version of this applet (F-15 and F-16). Fixed. I've also removed desktop-file-utils in BuildRequires section for the same reason.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. NOTE: license in README.md.
Requested upstream today. Hope it will be accepted! https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/14...
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet_fix_gnome- shell_version_required.patch) Patch1 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system- monitor-applet_fix_gettext_domain.patch) Source0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome- shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz)
One more thing I had to integrate in the packaging process. Thanks for catching it. Fixed
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
It should be as this package is made of javascript and depends on gnome-shell. I would appreciate if someone could show me how to meet this request and to verify it if necessary.
[?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
As there is no upstream test, what do you think if this point should be N/A?
[?]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Any advice to achieve this would be appreciate if necessary.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: see [!] and NOTES.
Here are the new SPEC/SRPMS/RPMS files modified to conform your Review. Thanks to your comment #32, rpmlint warnings disappeared. I wasn't aware that such a method was possible to download some sources tarball from github. Very good advice. As usual, older SPEC/RPMS/SRPMS files are no longer available on my Dropbox shared folder (F-15 and F-16 ones are still there).
Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system...
Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system...
Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system...
F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-mo...
Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet
rpmlint for Rawhide
rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git21f7cce.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Thank you again Jeff!
Cordially,