[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-26 23:40:14 EDT --- Rebuilt for dist-f14, dist-f13-updates-candidate, dist-f12-updates-candidate and dist-f14-py27-rebuild and submitted push requests for F-13/12, closing. Thank you for review and CVS procedure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-26 18:35:47 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-24 14:00:37 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name:gphotoframe Short Description: Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop Owners: mtasaka Branches:F-12 F-13 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-24 13:47:54 EDT --- Thank you! Now I reviewed your review request, actually another interesting file manager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ben Boeckel 2010-07-24 12:11:01 EDT --- Ah, alright. Since it's dealt with in the spec file to be libexec (as other gss packages also seem to use), I'll approve. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-24
12:00:16 EDT ---
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe.spec
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gphotoframe/gphotoframe-1.0-2.fc.src.rpm
* Sun Jul 25 2010 Mamoru Tasaka - 1.0-2
- Fix license tag
(Actually changed to "GPLv3 and GPLv2+")
Well, about this comment in spec file:
-
# lib/ is hardcoded in setup.py
-
This means that setup.py in gphotoframe tries to install
"gphotoframe-screensaver" into
//"lib"/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver, here
"lib" is hardcoded. From setup.py:
29 ('lib/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver',
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764
--- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel 2010-07-24 11:34:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thank you for initial comments.
>
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > So, just that rpath issue.
>
> - Well, what do you mean "rpath" here? This is noarch and rpath
> should not be related.
Oops, yeah. I shouldn't do these so late at night I guess :P . Taking a peek in
the mock chroot, I don't see the "hardcoded" library path in that file since
it's just a shellscript that does "exec gphotoframe". Not sure what that is.
> > [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> > [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> > license.
> >
> > Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as
> > well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed.
>
> - Will change the license tag to "GPLv3+ and GPLv2+" (and adding some
> comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't
> explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included).
OK. The new rules for licensing are also good since gss depends on the base
package, so it's good there as well (need to update my checklist I guess).
> > Other:
> > - How is python3 parallel install?
>
> - I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported.
> And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package
> just support python2.
OK.
Just need a new spec for the license tag update and it's good.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-07-24
03:46:19 EDT ---
Thank you for initial comments.
(In reply to comment #2)
> [XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
> in
> the review.
>
> I'm guessing that the dangerous-commands are fine since they're macros and
> presumably fine. Perms are my thing. Seems to be an rpath sneaking around in
> gpf-ss. spectool -g gets the tarball, so that's fine as well.
>
> So, just that rpath issue.
- Well, what do you mean "rpath" here? This is noarch and rpath
should not be related.
> [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
>
> Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as
> well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed.
- Will change the license tag to "GPLv3+ and GPLv2+" (and adding some
comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't
explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included).
> Other:
>
> - For the EPEL stuff at the top, the sitearch macro can be removed since this
> is noarch.
- Will remove %python_sitearch
> - How is python3 parallel install?
- I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported.
And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package
just support python2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel 2010-07-24 03:00:35 EDT ---
[XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
% lintmock fedora-13-x86_64-bb
gphotoframe.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/gconf/schemas/gphotoframe.schemas
gphotoframe.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gphotoframe
gphotoframe.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
gphotoframe.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
gphotoframe.src: W: strange-permission gphotoframe-1.0.tar.gz 0640L
gphotoframe.src: W: strange-permission gphotoframe.spec 0640L
gphotoframe.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver/gphotoframe-screensaver
gphotoframe.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
gphotoframe.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://gphotoframe.googlecode.com/files/gphotoframe-1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screensaver -> screen
saver, screen-saver, screens aver
gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screensaver ->
screen saver, screen-saver, screens aver
gphotoframe-gss.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
I'm guessing that the dangerous-commands are fine since they're macros and
presumably fine. Perms are my thing. Seems to be an rpath sneaking around in
gpf-ss. spectool -g gets the tarball, so that's fine as well.
So, just that rpath issue.
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as
well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed.
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
The COPYING says GPLv3+, but the sources don't have headers themselves.
[OK] 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 must be included in %doc.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[OK] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is
strictly forbidden.
[OK] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[OK] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[OK] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[OK] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program
must run properly if it is not present.
[OK] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[OK] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[OK] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for direct
[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop
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=617764 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||maths...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2010-07-24 02:45:13 EDT --- Taking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
