Bug 1337434

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14165505

You're missing an extra Provides, as you need to provide both one with %_isa and one without.

Provides:       xdg-app-devel = %{version}-%{release}

Provides:       xdg-app = %{version}-%{release}

I think that I have the Provides correct now, quoting from <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages>:

* flatpak provides only xdg-app (no isa) because it's just some standalone programs ("Even though these programs may themselves be arch-specific, clients that run them should not care about their arch in most cases.")
* flatpak-builder provides only xdg-app-builder, by the same reasoning as flatpak
* the -libs and -devel packages provide only xdg-app-libs%{?_isa} and xdg-app-libs-devel%{_isa} ("Examples of packages that should explicitly provide only arch-specific Provides: include native code libraries or plug-ins and their associated -devel packages.")

Does that seem right?

The only problem is that "xdg-app-devel" != "xdg-app-devel(x86-64)". Because of that, someone who requires xdg-app-devel will not get the flatpak-devel package.

It doesn't seem like this is a problem in practice, as "dnf repoquery --alldeps --whatrequires xdg-app-devel" gives no results (on rawhide). As far as I am aware, only gnome-software has a BuildRequires for xdg-app-devel, and that will be switched to flatpak as soon as the package is available in Fedora (and should probably be switched to a pkgconfig dependency anyway).

If there is a general problem with the policy, then that probably needs to be brought up with the FPC.

Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec
SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Updated SRPM URL for the new 0.6.1 release.

Neal, can we wrap the review up ? We're waiting for the fedora packages to officially announce the new name and website, so it would be nice to have this resolved quickly.

Taking this then

rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint flatpak-0.6.0-1.fc25.src.rpm 
flatpak.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

And here is the rpmlint output for the binary rpms:

$ rpmlint flatpak-*x86_64.rpm
flatpak.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed
flatpak.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.Flatpak.SystemHelper.conf
flatpak.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/flatpak.sh
flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-libcontainer.c
flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-console.h
flatpak-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/flatpak-0.6.0/libglnx/glnx-console.c
flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure
flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xdg-app-devel
flatpak-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
flatpak-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libflatpak -> inflatable
flatpak-libs.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/flatpak/bwrap
flatpak-libs.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/libflatpak.so.0.600.0
flatpak-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings.

The incorrect fsf addresses should probably be reported back to libglnx upstream, but I don't think that blocks the review. The missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot warning is just wrong. The code calls chdir right before and after chroot.

checklist:

package naming: ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: ok
license: ok
license field: ok
license file: ok
spec language: ok
spec legibility: excellent
upstream sources: the latest tarball found at the source url is 0.6.0. need to clarify with Alex if tarball will continue to be on freedesktop.org or just on github
buildable: ok
excludearch: not needed
buildrequires: ok
locale handling: not needed
ldconfig: ok
system libraries: ok
relocatable: no
directory ownership: should own /usr/share/gdm/env.d or require gdm. Owning the directory is probably preferable in this case
duplicate files: ok 
permissions: ok
macro use: ok
permissible content: ok
large docs: not applicable
%doc content: ok
static libraries: none
development files: ok
devel package deps: ok
libtool archives: ok
desktop file: not applicable
file ownership: ok
utf8 filenames: ok

In summary: fix up directory ownership

Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec
SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

Updated SRPM URL for the new 0.6.2 release, and incorporating the env.d directory ownership fix. I took the tarball from github, but as you say, it would be good to know the canonical location for tarball releases.

thanks, looks good now

The canonical release is now on github, as everything else but the mailing list is there.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/flatpak

flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24 gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8a483bb84c

flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23 ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f9167af92a

flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24, gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8a483bb84c

Note:

Obsoleting Packages
flatpak-libs.i686                                                                                       0.6.2-1.fc24                                                                                updates-testing
    xdg-app-libs.x86_64                                                                                 0.5.2-1.fc24                                                                                @fedora        
flatpak-libs.x86_64                                                                                     0.6.2-1.fc24                                                                                updates-testing
    xdg-app-libs.x86_64                                                                                 0.5.2-1.fc24                                                                                @fedora        

Obsoletes should be covering that.

In fact, I got only the 64 bit version installed, unlike dnf mentioned getting both.

flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23, ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f9167af92a

flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc24, gnome-software-3.20.2-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

flatpak-0.6.2-1.fc23, ostree-2016.5-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.