Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request:sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel for Sugar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Summary: Review Request:sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel for Sugar Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: smparrish@shallowcreek.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.s... SRPM URL: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0...
Description: This is the Activity updater for the Sugar desktop.
Build log here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1076695
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |462625(FedoraOLPCDelta)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bernie@codewiz.org
--- Comment #1 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-04 11:17:50 EDT --- *** Bug 488198 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #2 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-04 12:40:06 EDT --- Updated SPEC file: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.s...
Updated SRPM: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0...
Build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1220972
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rdieter@math.unl.edu AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rdieter@math.unl.edu Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2009-03-05 08:47:18 EDT --- I'll give it a whirl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2009-03-05 10:40:18 EDT --- sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/microformat.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/util/urlrange.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/actutils.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/actinfo.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/pseudo/LC_MESSAGES/sugar-update-control.mo error checking signature of sugar-update-control-0.20-1.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings.
I consider the non-executable-script things to be mostly harmless in this context.
The incorrect locale is worrisome, upstream should fix that, but I don't consider it a blocker.
The
guideines mention needing BuildRequires: sugar-toolkit but that's not included here. Why? not needed? oversight?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #5 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-05 10:47:35 EDT --- The reason is that sugar-update-control is not an activity, but a component of the base system, used to update activities to newer release, so the BR is not required. I'll upstream the incorrect locale and take a look at the permissions.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2009-03-05 10:49:30 EDT --- Checked source files and COPYING, seems the license ought to be License: GPLv2+
%files %{_datadir}/sugar looks a bit excessive too, that dir is already owned by 'sugar', maybe something like this would be an improvement:
%{_datadir}/sugar/data/icons/* # currently nothing (on f-10 anyway) owns extentions, not sure # here is the best place, but... %dir %{_datadir}/sugar/extentions/ %{_datadir}/sugar/extensions/cpsection/
Otherise, the rest of the spec is largely simple and clean... macros used consistently and correctly.
Address these items: 1. License 2. dir ownership
and I'll approve this.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #7 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-05 11:46:20 EDT --- Updated SPEC file: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.s...
Updated SRPM: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0...
Build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1224230&name=build.log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2009-03-07 15:32:06 EDT --- looks good, approved.
(consider using a %{?dist} in Release too, if this is every something you'll want to support in multiple fedora releases).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-07 15:36:48 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: sugar-update-control Short Description: Activity update control panel for the Sugar Desktop Owners: tuxbrewr Branches: F10 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #10 from Bernie Innocenti bernie@codewiz.org 2009-03-07 18:16:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
Updated SPEC file: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.s...
Updated SRPM: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0...
Build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1224230&name=build.log
Thanks for these fixes! Are you going to import in cvs yourself?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #11 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-07 18:25:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #7)
Updated SPEC file: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.s...
Updated SRPM: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0...
Build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1224230&name=build.log
Thanks for these fixes! Are you going to import in cvs yourself?
Yes CVS request is pending. Once complete will start a build.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #12 from Bernie Innocenti bernie@codewiz.org 2009-03-07 18:47:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
Thanks for these fixes! Are you going to import in cvs yourself?
Your spec file does not seem to be a direct derivative of mine. I merged our changes in this new one:
http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/specs/sugar-update-control.spec
Please, import this version if you don't mind. Let me know if you would like to also co-maintain the upstream version in gitorious.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #13 from Bernie Innocenti bernie@codewiz.org 2009-03-07 18:53:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/specs/sugar-update-control.spec
Just uploaded an updated version with a small fix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review |Review Request: |Request:sugar-update-contro |sugar-update-control - |l - Activity update control |Activity update control |panel for Sugar |panel for Sugar Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-03-07 19:14:07 EDT --- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #15 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-07 19:49:37 EDT --- Its done and successfully built for rawhide. Would be glad to help comaintain the upstream as well. You can also go here https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sugar-update-control and request comaintain on the feodra package and I will approve it.
Steven
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #16 from Bernie Innocenti bernie@codewiz.org 2009-03-07 21:58:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15)
Its done and successfully built for rawhide.
I think we should build also on F10, and push it to bodhi as a new package.
Would be glad to help comaintain the upstream as well. You can also go here https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sugar-update-control and request comaintain on the feodra package and I will approve it.
Thanks, done.
Please, signup on gitorious, and I will add you as a committer to the sugar-update-control project:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-08 10:14:03 EDT --- sugar-update-control-0.20-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-update-control-0.20-3.fc10
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |462625(FedoraOLPCDelta) Depends on|462625(FedoraOLPCDelta) |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-11 13:56:39 EDT --- sugar-update-control-0.20-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.20-4.fc10 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2009-03-11 14:44:43 EDT --- Why is this being pushed to F-10, when it's Requires: sugar >= 0.83 can't be satisfied? (F-10 currently has sugar-0.82.9-4.fc10)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2009-03-11 14:46:38 EDT --- We had talked about the "sugar >= 0.83 and F-10" issue in irc, but I hadn't documented it here in the review (part of the reason why the review lacked "testing it out")
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
--- Comment #21 from Bernie Innocenti bernie@codewiz.org 2009-03-12 01:24:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
Why is this being pushed to F-10, when it's Requires: sugar >= 0.83 can't be satisfied? (F-10 currently has sugar-0.82.9-4.fc10)
sugar-update-control should also work with sugar-0.82.
I would recommend pushing all of 0.84 to F10 though. You don't normally do major upgrades on a stable release, but I would be surprised if there were actual users depending on 0.82.x on Fedora 10, because for a number of reasons this release wasn't really usable on anything but the XO, and not very usable there either.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Martin Dengler martin@martindengler.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin@martindengler.com
--- Comment #22 from Martin Dengler martin@martindengler.com 2009-06-09 20:50:38 EDT --- The rpm is broken as it is currently in rawhide (code fails to import bitfrost). The specfile doesn't look correct to me. It shouldn't be deleting part of the code it's meant to install. This patch fixes it for me:
--- sugar-update-control.spec | 2 -- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sugar-update-control.spec b/sugar-update-control.spec index d5e16aa..09eda58 100644 --- a/sugar-update-control.spec +++ b/sugar-update-control.spec @@ -33,8 +33,6 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %{__python} setup.py install --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-# avoid conflicts with standard __init__.py* -rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/{bitfrost,bitfrost/update,bitfrost/util}/__init__.py* %find_lang %{name}
%clean -- 1.6.0.6 ~
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
Steven M. Parrish smparrish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |smparrish@gmail.com
--- Comment #23 from Steven M. Parrish smparrish@gmail.com 2009-06-10 07:29:31 EDT --- Thanks for the report. New builds have been submitted. If you have any other issues please open a new report.
Thanks
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org