[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-03-25 08:06:41 --- Comment #10 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Built in f19 and rawhide -- 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=kXdFM443Zia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 --- Comment #11 from Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com --- A minor nit - the guidelines say 'MUST' run desktop-file-install; this .spec only does a desktop-file-validate. Not sure if this spec or the guidelines should change... Yeah, the wording in the guidelines is unclear. There's two distinct cases: 1) The package doesn't include the desktop file and we instead ship one in the rpm package as a downstream change. In this case, like the guidelines say, we MUST use the 'desktop-file-install' as opposed to just copying the file to the final location. 2) The package includes a desktop file and installs it to the final location itself. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to install it again with 'desktop-file-install'; this is where 'desktop-file-validate' is appropriate. Also, the guidelines say that it's either one or the other. Quoting: one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install) To be complete: the detailed instructions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#desktop are correct, but the summary page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines is incomplete. But it is such a minor nit, and rather obvious, that I don't think any change is appropriate. Cheers, Jeremy -- 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=7rNpgZZ5YHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #2) New potential packager, doing informal reviews as requested in 'How to get sponsored'. Good work Jeremy! Full review included below; the only major point I noticed was a lack of Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries. Like Yanko said above, rpm autogenerates Requires for dynamically linked libraries, no need to list them again manually. Note the libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) and others down below, this is how an autogenerated dep on the gtk library looks like. $ rpm -qp --requires swell-foop-3.7.92-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit) libXdamage.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libclutter-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libclutter-gtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcogl-pango.so.12()(64bit) libcogl.so.12()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 A minor nit - the guidelines say 'MUST' run desktop-file-install; this .spec only does a desktop-file-validate. Not sure if this spec or the guidelines should change... Yeah, the wording in the guidelines is unclear. There's two distinct cases: 1) The package doesn't include the desktop file and we instead ship one in the rpm package as a downstream change. In this case, like the guidelines say, we MUST use the 'desktop-file-install' as opposed to just copying the file to the final location. 2) The package includes a desktop file and installs it to the final location itself. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to install it again with 'desktop-file-install'; this is where 'desktop-file-validate' is appropriate. Also, the guidelines say that it's either one or the other. Quoting: one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install) -- 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=L5liI4Jy10a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kalevlem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- I'm approving this based on Jeremy's review (thanks Jeremy!). I've done some additional checks to make sure it builds in koji and that the upgrade path looks sane, and it all looks good. I've got two really minor nitpicks: a) might be nice to sort the BRs and the %files list, and b) the --all-name option to the %find_lang macro is unnecessary here; all the docs / translations are installed under the 'swell-food' name. Feel free to change these before importing, if you think it makes sense. Looks good. APPROVED -- 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=zqqwpL7GB8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ | Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks New Package SCM Request === Package Name: swell-foop Short Description: GNOME colored tiles puzzle game Owners: yaneti Branches: f19 InitialCC: -- 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=ekvlzde4tja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Messsed up the flags, sorry. -- 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=91tOOQ0oiza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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=IFT21FImsAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 --- Comment #4 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- 3.7.92-1 - Update to 3.7.92 Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/swell-foop/swell-foop.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/swell-foop/swell-foop-3.7.92-1.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=EoDhv86QkCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673
Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwh...@codeweavers.com
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com ---
New potential packager, doing informal reviews as requested in 'How to get
sponsored'.
Full review included below; the only major point I noticed was a lack of
Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries.
A minor nit - the guidelines say 'MUST' run desktop-file-install; this .spec
only does a desktop-file-validate. Not sure if this spec or the guidelines
should change...
Cheers,
Jeremy
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
[x] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[x] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[x] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[x] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[x] 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.
[x] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[x] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[?] 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.
[x] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[x] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[-] 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.
[x] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[-] 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.
[!] 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.
%{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/org.gnome.swell-foop.gschema.xml
[x] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[x] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[x] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[x] 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).
[x] 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.
[-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[-] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[x] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[!] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 --- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #2) the only major point I noticed was a lack of Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries. The whole glib/gtk stack is standard shared libraries. RPM does auto-generate Requires on shared libraries on build time and they must not be listed explicitly. -- 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=9zlaenmIsoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 --- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/swell-foop/swell-foop.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/swell-foop/swell-foop-3.7.90-1.fc19.src.rpm 3.7.90-1 - New upstream release 3.7.90 - Fix desktop file -- 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=vWG7hqTY1ua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
