Bug 2127314

A few funky things (such as file in /etc/opt/) due to integration with what
looks like an ill-behaved third-party (looking at you Chrome) and splitting an
existing package (=> hence cannot really 'provide' the ancestor), but sane
altogether.

LGTM, many thanks for looking into this gnome extension connector issue.

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

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



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

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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1,
     /usr/share/dbus-1/services
     ^ provided by dbus-common, which is required by dbus-broker, which is in
     turn required by the dbus package (which is a dpeendency of this package).
     This case seem common (e.g. see gnome-terminal package).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/chromium(chrome-gnome-
     shell, chromium, webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config),
     /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts(chromium, webextension-gsconnect,
     chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token-signing),
     /etc/opt/chrome(chrome-remote-desktop, chrome-gnome-shell,
     webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config),
     /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts(chrome-remote-desktop,
     webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token-
     signing), /usr/lib64/mozilla/native-messaging-hosts(webextension-
     token-signing, mozilla-filesystem, textern, webextension-gsconnect,
     chrome-gnome-shell)
     ^ OK as per
     https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership
     "Packages must own all directories they put files in, except for: [...]
     any directories owned by other packages in your package’s natural
     dependency chain"... => mozilla-filesystem, fedora-chromium-config
[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./home/fnux/2127314-gnome-browser-connector/review.txt

[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
    ^ /etc/opt is funky... but it looks like that's where chrome is looking for
    config as it is provided so by upstream. It makes sense to ship them even
    if Chrome is not a part of Fedora, as I suspect many users use it.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: 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 20480 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell

^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell
package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent?

gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.browser_connector.json
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.browser_connector.json
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json

^ There is no other place for those files AFAIK - that's where chrom* are expecting them.

gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-browser-connector
gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-browser-connector-host

^ Not provided by upstream, and is not a CLI tool anyway.

gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later

^ Note that the Fedora identifier for GPL-3.0-or-later is GPLv3+, although SPDX
  identifier are allowed as well: "The License: field for new packages as of July
  2022 must be filled with the appropriate SPDX license identifier or expression
  from the list of allowed licenses for Fedora."
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://download.gnome.org/sources/gnome-browser-connector/42/gnome-browser-connector-42.1.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bd9702ce1c163606ca32b8c13d1f3ba6e82b247cf87aac60610b411df1556212
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd9702ce1c163606ca32b8c13d1f3ba6e82b247cf87aac60610b411df1556212


Requires
--------
gnome-browser-connector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    dbus
    gnome-shell
    hicolor-icon-theme
    mozilla-filesystem
    python(abi)
    python3-gobject-base



Provides
--------
gnome-browser-connector:
    application()
    application(org.gnome.BrowserConnector.desktop)
    gnome-browser-connector
    gnome-browser-connector(x86-64)
    mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/gnome-extensions)

Thanks a lot for the quick review! I agree with all your comments above. We have to keep the "funky" things if we want to integrate with 3rd party browsers.


> gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell
> 
> ^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell
> package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent?

Yes, that, and also because there is nothing in Fedora that has 'Requires: chrome-gnome-shell' -- if we had other packages requiring it, we'd need the provides to avoid breaking dependencies in other packages.

But maybe it would make sense to add the provides to help people find the renamed package? Not sure :)

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-browser-connector

FEDORA-2022-d40ccec448 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d40ccec448

FEDORA-2022-d40ccec448 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f

FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9756945a87

FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9756945a87

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

> > gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell
> > 
> > ^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell
> > package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent?
> 
> Yes, that, and also because there is nothing in Fedora that has 'Requires:
> chrome-gnome-shell' -- if we had other packages requiring it, we'd need the
> provides to avoid breaking dependencies in other packages.
> 
> But maybe it would make sense to add the provides to help people find the
> renamed package? Not sure :)

The legacy docs [1] says: "Providing your old package names is not necessary to create working upgrade paths."

If there's indeed no requires on the old chrome-xxx package, then everything looks fine :-)

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#cite_note-1