Bug 1006041

Summary: Review Request: heisenbug-backgrounds - Heisenbug desktop backgrounds
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Martin Sourada <martin.sourada>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Tim Flink <tflink>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: design-devel, jreznik, luya, notting, tflink
Target Milestone: ---Flags: tflink: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-09-14 03:09:52 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1000885, 1005251, 1005906    

Description Martin Sourada 2013-09-09 20:56:53 UTC
Spec URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/heisenbug-backgrounds.spec
SRPM URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: This package contains desktop backgrounds for the Heisenbug theme.
Pulls in themes for GNOME, KDE, Mate and Xfce desktops.
Fedora Account System Username: mso

Additional info:
Package is basically clone of schroedinger-cat-backgrounds with Heisenbug wallpapers. Rpmlint complaints about the comments (warnings from lines 37 to 197), which is OK, it's a code that's supposed to be enabled at some later time.  The artwork page on wiki also doesn't exist yet, even though it has a subpage (for supplemental wallpaper submissions). Dangling relative symlinks are ok, provided by required subpackage, the same goes for nodoc.

I quick-tested it in xfce, gnome, mate and kde, on my NB it works on all of them.

Comment 1 Jaroslav Reznik 2013-09-09 21:54:50 UTC
Schroedinger-cat-backgrounds review for reference https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=918801

Comment 2 Tim Flink 2013-09-09 23:03:05 UTC
    Mandatory review guidelines:
     - rpmlint output:

    [tflink@river heisenbug-backgrounds]$ rpmlint heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc19.src.rpm 
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_Artwork HTTP Error 404: Not Found
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %package
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %description
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:90: W: macro-in-comment %package
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %description
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:99: W: macro-in-comment %package
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:103: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:105: W: macro-in-comment %description
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:109: W: macro-in-comment %package
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:115: W: macro-in-comment %description
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:118: W: macro-in-comment %package
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:122: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:124: W: macro-in-comment %description
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:127: W: macro-in-comment %package
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:131: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:133: W: macro-in-comment %description
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:161: W: macro-in-comment %files
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %dir
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:163: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:163: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:164: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:164: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:165: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:165: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:166: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:166: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:166: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:180: W: macro-in-comment %files
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:181: W: macro-in-comment %doc
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:183: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:183: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:184: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:184: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:184: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:186: W: macro-in-comment %files
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:187: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:187: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:189: W: macro-in-comment %files
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:190: W: macro-in-comment %{_kde4_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:190: W: macro-in-comment %{Bg_Name}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:192: W: macro-in-comment %files
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:193: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:193: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:195: W: macro-in-comment %files
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:196: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    heisenbug-backgrounds.src:197: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
    1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 54 warnings.

    as noted above, this is OK - the artwork for f20 isn't done yet and the wiki page hasn't been created, the comment warnings are for code that's waiting to be enabled at a later time. the package

     - License is acceptable: yes, CC-BY-SA
     - License field in spec is correct: yes
     - License files included in package %docs if included in source package NA
     - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed: OK
     - Spec written in American English: OK
     - Spec is legible: OK
     - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
       Upstream SHA256: ...
       Your SHA256:     ...
     - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch: OK, tested on x86_64
     - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed: noarch
     - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary: NA
     - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* : NA
     - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files: NA
     - No bundled libs: OK
     - Relocatability is justified: NA
     - Package owns all directories it creates: OK
     - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own: OK
     - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files: OK
     - File permissions are sane: OK
     - Package contains permissible code or content: OK
     - Large docs go in -doc subpackage: NA
     - %doc files not required at runtime: NA
     - Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides: NA
     - Development files go in -devel package: NA
     - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa: NA
     - No .la files: OK
     - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install: NA
     - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification: OK
     - File names are valid UTF-8: OK

    Optional review guidelines:
     - Query upstream about including license files: NA, already exist
     - Translations of description, summary
     - Builds in mock: OK
     - Builds on all arches: NA, noarch
     - Functions as described (e.g. no crashes): OK
     - Scriptlets are sane: NA
     - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible: OK
     - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible: NA
     - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin: OK
     - Include man pages if available: NA

    Naming guidelines:
     - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ : OK
     - Package names are sane: OK
     - No naming conflicts: OK
     - Spec file name matches base package name: OK
     - Version is sane: OK
     - Version does not contain ~: OK
     - Release is sane: OK
     - %dist tag: OK
     - Case used only when necessary: OK
     - Renaming handled correctly: OK

    Packaging guidelines:
     - Useful without external bits: OK
     - No kmods: OK
     - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep: OK
     - Sources contain only redistributable code or content: OK
     - Spec format is sane: OK
     - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target: OK
     - No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17: OK
     - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run: NA
     - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17: NA
     - No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local: OK
     - Changelog in prescribed format: OK
     - No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags: OK
     - Summary does not end in a period: OK
     - Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6: NA, fedora only
     - Correct %clean section on < EL6: NA, fedora only
     - Requires correct, justified where necessary: OK
     - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly: OK
     - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc: OK
     - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x): OK
     - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc: OK
     - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise: OK
     - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs: OK
     - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified: OK
     - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6: NA
     - No static executables: OK
     - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs: OK
     - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config: NA
     - No config files under /usr: OK
     - Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir: NA
     - .desktop files are sane: NA, no desktop files
     - Spec uses macros consistently: OK
     - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate: OK
     - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed: OK
     - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work: NA
     - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time: NA
     - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir: NA
     - No software collections (scl): OK
     - Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name: NA
     - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs: OK
     - %global, not %define: OK
     - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it: NA
     - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel: NA
     - File ops preserve timestamps: OK
     - Parallel make: NA
     - No Requires(pre,post) notation: OK
     - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups): NA
     - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www: OK
     - Conflicts are justified: NA, no conflicts
     - One project per package: OK
     - No bundled fonts: OK
     - Patches have appropriate commentary: NA, no patches
     - Available test suites executed in %check: NA, no tests - just desktop backgrounds
     - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15: NA, no tempfiles


    Overall, looks good to me. Tested with F20 gnome and kde, works fine.

Comment 3 Tim Flink 2013-09-09 23:08:32 UTC
Since we're a bit short on time and mso is asleep, making scm request.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: heisenbug-backgrounds
Short Description: Heisenbug desktop backgrounds
Owners: mso
Branches: f20
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2013-09-09 23:09:50 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Design Software 2013-09-10 08:29:19 UTC
Scm request to cc to design-sw pseudo fas

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: heisenbug-backgrounds
Short Description: Heisenbug desktop backgrounds
Owners: mso
Branches: f20
InitialCC: design-sw

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2013-09-10 10:59:48 UTC
heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-09-10 12:05:20 UTC
Aleady exists.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-09-10 16:22:19 UTC
Package heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20, desktop-backgrounds-20.0.0-1.fc20:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20 desktop-backgrounds-20.0.0-1.fc20'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-16256/desktop-backgrounds-20.0.0-1.fc20,heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-09-14 03:09:52 UTC
heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20, desktop-backgrounds-20.0.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.