https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
Bug ID: 2127314 Summary: Review Request: gnome-browser-connector - GNOME Shell browser connector Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: klember@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-browser-connector.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-browser-connector-42.1-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Native host messaging connector that provides integration with GNOME Shell and the corresponding extensions repository https://extensions.gnome.org.
Fedora Account System Username: kalev
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92052166
This is largely just a rename from chrome-gnome-shell to gnome-browser-connection and the packaging is mostly based on chrome-gnome-shell packaging. Once the new package is in, we'll retire chrome-gnome-shell. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868 for details.
I've talked to Pete Walter and he's fine with retiring chrome-gnome-shell.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2106868
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106868 [Bug 2106868] Project name and source repository changed to gnome-browser-connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
Timothée Floure timothee.floure@posteo.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |timothee.floure@posteo.net Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |timothee.floure@posteo.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
Timothée Floure timothee.floure@posteo.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Timothée Floure timothee.floure@posteo.net --- A few funky things (such as file in /etc/opt/) due to integration with what looks like an ill-behaved third-party (looking at you Chrome) and splitting an existing package (=> hence cannot really 'provide' the ancestor), but sane altogether.
LGTM, many thanks for looking into this gnome extension connector issue.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services ^ provided by dbus-common, which is required by dbus-broker, which is in turn required by the dbus package (which is a dpeendency of this package). This case seem common (e.g. see gnome-terminal package). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/chromium(chrome-gnome- shell, chromium, webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config), /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts(chromium, webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token-signing), /etc/opt/chrome(chrome-remote-desktop, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config), /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts(chrome-remote-desktop, webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token- signing), /usr/lib64/mozilla/native-messaging-hosts(webextension- token-signing, mozilla-filesystem, textern, webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell) ^ OK as per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directo... "Packages must own all directories they put files in, except for: [...] any directories owned by other packages in your package’s natural dependency chain"... => mozilla-filesystem, fedora-chromium-config [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./home/fnux/2127314-gnome-browser-connector/review.txt
[-]: 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. ^ /etc/opt is funky... but it looks like that's where chrome is looking for config as it is provided so by upstream. It makes sense to ship them even if Chrome is not a part of Fedora, as I suspect many users use it. [x]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 2 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 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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell
^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent?
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.browser_connector.json gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.browser_connector.json gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json
^ There is no other place for those files AFAIK - that's where chrom* are expecting them.
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-browser-connector gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-browser-connector-host
^ Not provided by upstream, and is not a CLI tool anyway.
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later
^ Note that the Fedora identifier for GPL-3.0-or-later is GPLv3+, although SPDX identifier are allowed as well: "The License: field for new packages as of July 2022 must be filled with the appropriate SPDX license identifier or expression from the list of allowed licenses for Fedora."
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/gnome-browser-connector/42/gnome-browser-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd9702ce1c163606ca32b8c13d1f3ba6e82b247cf87aac60610b411df1556212 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd9702ce1c163606ca32b8c13d1f3ba6e82b247cf87aac60610b411df1556212
Requires -------- gnome-browser-connector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 dbus gnome-shell hicolor-icon-theme mozilla-filesystem python(abi) python3-gobject-base
Provides -------- gnome-browser-connector: application() application(org.gnome.BrowserConnector.desktop) gnome-browser-connector gnome-browser-connector(x86-64) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/gnome-extensions)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- Thanks a lot for the quick review! I agree with all your comments above. We have to keep the "funky" things if we want to integrate with 3rd party browsers.
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell
^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent?
Yes, that, and also because there is nothing in Fedora that has 'Requires: chrome-gnome-shell' -- if we had other packages requiring it, we'd need the provides to avoid breaking dependencies in other packages.
But maybe it would make sense to add the provides to help people find the renamed package? Not sure :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-browser-connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d40ccec448 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d40ccec448
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-09-17 13:59:39
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d40ccec448 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9756945a87
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9756945a87
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #12 from Timothée Floure timothee.floure@posteo.net ---
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell
^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent?
Yes, that, and also because there is nothing in Fedora that has 'Requires: chrome-gnome-shell' -- if we had other packages requiring it, we'd need the provides to avoid breaking dependencies in other packages.
But maybe it would make sense to add the provides to help people find the renamed package? Not sure :)
The legacy docs [1] says: "Providing your old package names is not necessary to create working upgrade paths."
If there's indeed no requires on the old chrome-xxx package, then everything looks fine :-)
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting...
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org