Bug 1387669 (kio-gdrive)

Are you still interested in package it? I am can be sponsor or can take the pakage.

1. Update to 1.0.4.

2. Use cmake-style BR:
BuildRequires:  cmake(KF5GAPI)
BuildRequires:  cmake(KF5I18n)
BuildRequires:  cmake(KF5KIO)
BuildRequires:  cmake(Qt5Keychain)
BuildRequires:  extra-cmake-modules
BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils

3. Use %autosetup instead of 
%setup -q -n kio-gdrive-%{version}

4. Use %make_build and %make_install macro.

5. Add language files and validate desktop file.

You can use my spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402886

You should make clear what items are review blockers, and which are not.  of those you mentioned, only 5 is a blocker.

The rest, some are only general recommendations (2,4)

For item 4 in particular, those are tailored for autoconf-based projects, and %make_install in particular misses cmake's nice 'install/fast' target (which is actually used here, and preferable).

I still interested in package, this will be my first package to Fedora.

Updated to 1.04, combine both recommendations of Rex and you, Vasiliy.

New Spec URL: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/kio-gdrive.spec
New SRPM URL: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/kio-gdrive-1.0.4-1.fc25.src.rpm

In %files section change paths:
%{_libdir}/qt5/plugins/kf5/kio/gdrive.so
to
%{_qt5_plugindir}/kf5/kio/*

and
%{_datarootdir}/applications/org.kde.kio-gdrive.desktop
to
%{_datadir}/applications/*

Now as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Show_Your_Expertise_by_Commenting_on_other_Review_Requests you should make review for other package so I can sponsor you.

Make it according guidlines 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

*** Bug 1402886 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Changed paths.


V2 Spec URL: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/kio-gdrive.spec
V2 SRPM URL: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/kio-gdrive-1.0.4-1.fc25.src.rpm

Package review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037427

I am think that "make review request" mean that you need make full review (with run and check fedora-review) with actual package and responsive packager.

And if you update SPEC and Srpm URL you not need add "V2", just write it like in first post.

Full review attach to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037427

Oh, sorry, I am not able to be a sponsor. I have not enough experience for it.

May be Rex will sponsor.

But I make review of your package.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/vascom/1387669-kio-gdrive/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[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 or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in kio-
     gdrive-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: kio-gdrive-1.0.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          kio-gdrive-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          kio-gdrive-1.0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm
kio-gdrive.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/org.kde.kio-gdrive.desktop dolphin
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: kio-gdrive-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
kio-gdrive-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

kio-gdrive (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    application(org.kde.dolphin.desktop)
    libKF5Completion.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5ConfigCore.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5GAPICore.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5GAPIDrive.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5JobWidgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5KIOCore.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5KIOWidgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5Service.so.5()(64bit)
    libKF5WidgetsAddons.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6)(64bit)
    libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libqt5keychain.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
kio-gdrive-debuginfo:
    kio-gdrive-debuginfo
    kio-gdrive-debuginfo(x86-64)

kio-gdrive:
    application()
    application(org.kde.kio-gdrive.desktop)
    kio-gdrive
    kio-gdrive(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
kio-gdrive: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/kio/gdrive.so

Source checksums
----------------
http://download.kde.org/stable/kio-gdrive/1.0.4/src/kio-gdrive-1.0.4.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6ee861268a90e19a9e1123af0a322ee0a70632dc527fd4883ec8e6ea746cc434
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6ee861268a90e19a9e1123af0a322ee0a70632dc527fd4883ec8e6ea746cc434


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1387669
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

I can review this today

Sorry for the delay.


1. non-blocker/SHOULD:  Response to comment #4 , I find that recommendation to be bad in general.  I'd recommend reverting that change, to properly track the files included (*especially* the .desktop file name)

2. non-blocker/SHOULD: this dependency is odd:
Requires: application(org.kde.dolphin.desktop)
better to simply use:
Requires: dolphin

3. non-blocker/SHOULD: drop use of %make_build, prefering instead:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
for now.  %make_build (and friends) are tailored to autoconf-based packages


Otherwise, fairly simple and clean package,
APPROVED

I've sponsored you into the packagers group, welcome to fedora!


Next steps:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner


Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or need anything else.  Other development communication channels are very useful too:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicating_and_getting_help
fedora-devel mailing list and #fedora-devel irc channels

Final Spec URL: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/1.0.5/kio-gdrive.spec
Final SRPM URL: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/1.0.5/kio-gdrive-1.0.5-1.fc25.src.rpm

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/kio-gdrive

On second thought, since the .desktop file includes the key:
TryExec=dolphin

you can safely remove the dependency,
Requires: dolphin

altogether, the menu item will be shown only if dolphin is available.  The kioslave is useful and available to other kf5 kio applications without needing dolphin to be present.

removing NEEDSPONSOR (forgot before, sorry)

Last https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/1.0.5/kio-gdrive.spec
Last https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kio-gdrive/1.0.5/kio-gdrive-1.0.5-2.fc25.src.rpm

Which is the next step?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Check_out_the_module

These steps...

2.1.18 Check out the module
2.1.19 Test Your Package
2.1.20 Import, commit, and build your package
2.1.21 Update Your Branches (if desired)
2.1.22 Submit Package as Update in Bodhi

kio-gdrive-1.0.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-277ecf5ae0

kio-gdrive-1.0.5-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-eda082083d

Thank you for your support, tried follow the next steps earlier but had problems with Koji certificate and git connection, in the second try all works successfully. Now finished all.

kio-gdrive-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1adf6e93e9

kio-gdrive-1.1.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a10a22d584

kio-gdrive-1.1.0-1.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-2017-1adf6e93e9

kio-gdrive-1.1.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-a10a22d584

kio-gdrive-1.1.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

kio-gdrive-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.