[Bug 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||mcla...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-01-07 07:45:58 --- Comment #14 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com --- gnome-photos has been built -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gmxvO7fn4La=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 --- Comment #8 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- Add explanation for licensies. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 --- Comment #9 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #8) Add explanation for licensies. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Fixed. - Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos-3.7.2-4.fc18.src.rpm -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
--- Comment #10 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation
Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should be
included in the package as %doc. Irrelevant documentation include build
instructions, the omnipresent INSTALL file containing generic build
instructions
You use %{_docdir}/%{name} instead of %doc
--
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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to comment #10)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
Guidelines#Documentation
Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should be
included in the package as %doc. Irrelevant documentation include build
instructions, the omnipresent INSTALL file containing generic build
instructions
Debarshi (he is the upstream developer) already said in comment 3 that he has
fixed this upstream so that the INSTALL file will not get installed any more.
So it would be silly to add something in the spec that I'll have to remove when
3.7.3 comes out (which should happen in mid-December).
You use %{_docdir}/%{name} instead of %doc
I already answered Debarshi about that in comment 5: files in %{_docdir} are
automatically marked as %doc, you don't have to do it manually in the spec.
--
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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
Ok.
IMO no %doc in files confuse me and it's not good to use non-standard way but
in really it can't block a review. So you package is approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[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 if there is
such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/877763-gnome-
photos/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file
[Bug 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-photos Short Description: Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME Owners: bochecha Branches: devel InitialCC: -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #6) I couldn't to use this application. When I started it it has no any photos and I couldn't find any way to add them. You need to have Tracker running and indexing your photos in ~/Pictures. There is no way to « add » pictures to it, it finds them automatically. In .spec you use https://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Photos but About of Gnome-Photos used https://live.gnome.org/GnomePhotos. Probably it should be fixed. I didn't know about this URL, so I used the other one. Fixed. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/877763-gnome- photos/licensecheck.txt Use GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ for License tag Good catch! Fixed. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I guess that's a note for Debarshi to add unit tests upstream. :P [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Doh, I asked you to fix it in NetworkManager-l2tp and I can't do it properly in my own package. :) Fixed. - Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos-3.7.2-3.fc18.src.rpm -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
I couldn't to use this application. When I started it it has no any photos and
I couldn't find any way to add them.
In .spec you use https://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Photos but About of
Gnome-Photos used https://live.gnome.org/GnomePhotos.
Probably it should be fixed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation
Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should be
included in the package as %doc. Irrelevant documentation include build
instructions, the omnipresent INSTALL file containing generic build
instructions
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/877763-gnome-
photos/licensecheck.txt
Use GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ for License tag
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: 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 if there is
such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/877763-gnome-
photos/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes
[Bug 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to comment #2)
* rpmlint complains about no-manual-page-for-binary, install-file-in-docs,
invalid-desktopfile, incorrect-fsf-address and macro-in-comment.
- macro-in-comment is because I commented the line where I validate the desktop
file. So when I update to 3.7.3 which has a valid desktop file, I'll uncomment
the line and rpmlint's warning will disappear.
- install-file-in-docs and invalid-desktopfile (Thanks Mathieu) have been
fixed upstream
Not doing anything for these then, I'll pick them up when updating once you
release 3.7.3 :)
X It should have a BR on gdk-pixbuf2-devel, not gdk-pixbuf2.
Fixed.
X Pedantically speaking it should have Provides: bundled(libgd). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
- It must be noted that libgd is not meant to be installed as a system
wide shared library. It is just a way for GNOME applications to share
widgets and other common code on an ad-hoc basis.
Fixed.
X Files marked as %doc do not affect the runtime behaviour.
- You could consider marking %{_docdir}/%{name} as %doc
rpmbuild does that automatically :)
$ rpm -qp --docfiles gnome-photos-3.7.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ARTISTS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/INSTALL
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/README
--
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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
--- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
Sorry, I sent my previous comment too early (there seems to be a keyboard
shortcut which validates forms in Epiphany :-/ )
(In reply to comment #2)
* rpmlint complains about no-manual-page-for-binary, install-file-in-docs,
invalid-desktopfile, incorrect-fsf-address and macro-in-comment.
- macro-in-comment is because I commented the line where I validate the desktop
file. So when I update to 3.7.3 which has a valid desktop file, I'll uncomment
the line and rpmlint's warning will disappear.
- about incorrect-fsf-address, I'll send you a patch which fixes all the
addresses, so I'll pick that up in 3.7.3 too.
- install-file-in-docs and invalid-desktopfile (Thanks Mathieu) have been
fixed upstream
Not doing anything for these then, I'll pick them up when updating once you
release 3.7.3 :)
X It should have a BR on gdk-pixbuf2-devel, not gdk-pixbuf2.
Fixed.
X Pedantically speaking it should have Provides: bundled(libgd). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
- It must be noted that libgd is not meant to be installed as a system
wide shared library. It is just a way for GNOME applications to share
widgets and other common code on an ad-hoc basis.
Fixed.
X Files marked as %doc do not affect the runtime behaviour.
- You could consider marking %{_docdir}/%{name} as %doc
rpmbuild does that automatically :)
$ rpm -qp --docfiles gnome-photos-3.7.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ARTISTS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/INSTALL
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/README
Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos-3.7.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
--
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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dr...@land.ru -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 --- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com --- Sorry, I meant Ivan, not Igor. My apologies. -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dr...@land.ru --- Comment #1 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- Let's swap reviews. My review request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653 -- 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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||debars...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com ---
Since Igor beat me to it, consider this an unofficial review.
* rpmlint complains about no-manual-page-for-binary, install-file-in-docs,
invalid-desktopfile, incorrect-fsf-address and macro-in-comment.
- install-file-in-docs and invalid-desktopfile (Thanks Mathieu) have been
fixed upstream
* Package is named according to Package Naming Guidelines.
* Spec file matches with base package %{name}.
* Package meets Packaging Guidelines.
* Package meets Licensing Guidelines.
* The License field in the spec file matches the actual license.
* License text included in %doc.
* Spec file is written in American English.
* Spec file is legible.
* Sources used to build the package matches upstream source.
* Package can be successfully built on atleast one primary architecture.
* ExcludeArch is not needed.
X It should have a BR on gdk-pixbuf2-devel, not gdk-pixbuf2.
* Locales are handled properly using %find_lang.
* Package does not contain shared library files.
X Pedantically speaking it should have Provides: bundled(libgd). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
- It must be noted that libgd is not meant to be installed as a system wide
shared library. It is just a way for GNOME applications to share widgets and
other common code on an ad-hoc basis.
* Package is not designed to be relocatable.
* Package owns all directories created by it.
* Files are not listed more than once in %files.
* File permissions are set properly.
* Macros are used consistently.
* Package contains code.
* No need for -doc subpackage.
X Files marked as %doc do not affect the runtime behaviour.
- You could consider marking %{_docdir}/%{name} as %doc
* No need for -static subpackage.
* No need for -devel subpackage.
* Package does not contain libtool archives.
* Package has a %{name}.desktop file.
- Problems in %{name}.desktop file have been fixed upstream. (Thanks Mathieu)
* Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
* Filenames are valid UTF-8.
* Package builds in Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4716019
--
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
