https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Bug ID: 1337434 Summary: Review Request: flatpak - Application deployment framework for desktop apps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: amigadave@amigadave.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: flatpak is a system for building, distributing and running sandboxed desktop applications on Linux. See https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps for more information. Fedora Account System Username: amigadave
This is a rename (and re-review request as per the package rename policy) of the xdg-app package (which I an the POC for).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-05-27 23:31:39
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23, ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #1 from David King amigadave@amigadave.com --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14165505
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- You're missing an extra Provides, as you need to provide both one with %_isa and one without.
Provides: xdg-app-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: xdg-app = %{version}-%{release}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #3 from David King amigadave@amigadave.com --- I think that I have the Provides correct now, quoting from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages:
* flatpak provides only xdg-app (no isa) because it's just some standalone programs ("Even though these programs may themselves be arch-specific, clients that run them should not care about their arch in most cases.") * flatpak-builder provides only xdg-app-builder, by the same reasoning as flatpak * the -libs and -devel packages provide only xdg-app-libs%{?_isa} and xdg-app-libs-devel%{_isa} ("Examples of packages that should explicitly provide only arch-specific Provides: include native code libraries or plug-ins and their associated -devel packages.")
Does that seem right?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- The only problem is that "xdg-app-devel" != "xdg-app-devel(x86-64)". Because of that, someone who requires xdg-app-devel will not get the flatpak-devel package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #5 from David King amigadave@amigadave.com --- It doesn't seem like this is a problem in practice, as "dnf repoquery --alldeps --whatrequires xdg-app-devel" gives no results (on rawhide). As far as I am aware, only gnome-software has a BuildRequires for xdg-app-devel, and that will be switched to flatpak as soon as the package is available in Fedora (and should probably be switched to a pkgconfig dependency anyway).
If there is a general problem with the policy, then that probably needs to be brought up with the FPC.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #6 from David King amigadave@amigadave.com --- Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Updated SRPM URL for the new 0.6.1 release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mclasen@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com --- Neal, can we wrap the review up ? We're waiting for the fedora packages to officially announce the new name and website, so it would be nice to have this resolved quickly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mclasen@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com --- Taking this then
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com --- rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint flatpak-0.6.0-1.fc25.src.rpm flatpak.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com --- And here is the rpmlint output for the binary rpms:
$ rpmlint flatpak-*x86_64.rpm flatpak.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed flatpak.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.Flatpak.SystemHelper.conf flatpak.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/flatpak.sh flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-libcontainer.c flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-console.h flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-console.c flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xdg-app-devel flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib flatpak-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libflatpak -> inflatable flatpak-libs.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/flatpak/bwrap flatpak-libs.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/libflatpak.so.0.600.0 flatpak-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings.
The incorrect fsf addresses should probably be reported back to libglnx upstream, but I don't think that blocks the review. The missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot warning is just wrong. The code calls chdir right before and after chroot.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com --- checklist:
package naming: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec legibility: excellent upstream sources: the latest tarball found at the source url is 0.6.0. need to clarify with Alex if tarball will continue to be on freedesktop.org or just on github buildable: ok excludearch: not needed buildrequires: ok locale handling: not needed ldconfig: ok system libraries: ok relocatable: no directory ownership: should own /usr/share/gdm/env.d or require gdm. Owning the directory is probably preferable in this case duplicate files: ok permissions: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: not applicable %doc content: ok static libraries: none development files: ok devel package deps: ok libtool archives: ok desktop file: not applicable file ownership: ok utf8 filenames: ok
In summary: fix up directory ownership
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #12 from David King amigadave@amigadave.com --- Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc25.src.rpm
Updated SRPM URL for the new 0.6.2 release, and incorporating the env.d directory ownership fix. I took the tarball from github, but as you say, it would be good to know the canonical location for tarball releases.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com --- thanks, looks good now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Alexander Larsson alexl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexl@redhat.com
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Larsson alexl@redhat.com --- The canonical release is now on github, as everything else but the mailing list is there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/flatpak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24 gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8a483bb84c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23 ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f9167af92a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24, gnome-software-3.20.2-4.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-2016-8a483bb84c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |ASSIGNED CC| |mrunge@redhat.com
--- Comment #19 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Note:
Obsoleting Packages flatpak-libs.i686 0.6.2-1.fc24 updates-testing xdg-app-libs.x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc24 @fedora flatpak-libs.x86_64 0.6.2-1.fc24 updates-testing xdg-app-libs.x86_64 0.5.2-1.fc24 @fedora
Obsoletes should be covering that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- In fact, I got only the 64 bit version installed, unlike dnf mentioned getting both.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23, ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-f9167af92a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24, gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org