needinfo canceled: [Bug 1806386] Re-review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Package Review has canceled Package Review 's request for Mamoru TASAKA 's needinfo: Bug 1806386: Re-review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806386 --- Comment #7 from Package Review --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1806386] Re-review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806386 --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- > - Split the doc into a noarch subpackage: I don't think I should split html files into another subpackage for this rpm for now. This is required for large documentation: - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4218880 bytes in 501 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1806386] Re-review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806386
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
Thank you for comments:
- Why do you change the icon? And remove all icons?
Using system-wide icon enables the looks to change according to system style.
- Why don't you keep the desktop file in applications? Even if you autorun it,
it should be accessible from the menu.
Because this is not something like "GUI". This is usually aimed for staying on
panels.
- This shouldn't be marked as %config I think:
- %config %{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{name}.desktop
I see some other packages actually mark these files (under /etc/xdg/autostart)
as %config (but not (noreplace)),
but I can rethink this later.
- Split the doc into a noarch subpackage:
I don't think I should split html files into another subpackage for this rpm
for now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1806386] Re-review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806386
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Why do you change the icon? And remove all icons?
- Why don't you keep the desktop file in applications? Even if you autorun it,
it should be accessible from the menu.
- This shouldn't be marked as %config I think:
%config %{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{name}.desktop
- Split the doc into a noarch subpackage:
Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 4218880 bytes in 501 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pnmixer
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 4218880 bytes in 501 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License (v3)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)". 56 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/pnmixer/review-pnmixer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/xdg/autostart/pnmixer.desktop
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[Bug 1806386] Re-review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806386 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Thank you for comments. https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/pnmixer/pnmixer.spec https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/pnmixer/pnmixer-0.7.2-4.fc30.src.rpm * Tue Feb 25 2020 Mamoru TASAKA - 0.7.2-4 - Reflect review request comments - Change SourceURL - Remove obsolete items - Remove unused files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1806386] Re-review Request: pnmixer - Lightweight mixer applet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806386
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki ---
>Group: Applications/Multimedia
The "Group:" tag is not used in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
>URL:https://github.com/nicklan/pnmixer
>Source0:%{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
For GitHub, you can use "archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz".
># Fix icon in launcher
>sed -i \
>'s/Icon=pnmixer/Icon=multimedia-volume-control/' \
>data/desktop/pnmixer.desktop.in
>[...]
>%files
>%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/%{name}.png
If the program comes with an icon, why replace it in the desktop file? Could
you perhaps expand the comment?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
