Bug 2543864

BTW this is submitted to https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/package-review/pulls/4 as well in case you want to provide inline feedback.

Find the result of fedora-review below. The first issue below came from
fedora-review itself, the rest come from rpmlint. If I am not mistaken
they are optional in the review guidelines or directly cosmetic.
So overall I think the package is OK as far I can tell.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.
- Duplicate CHANGELOG.md: shipped both via %doc (/usr/share/doc/) and inside
  the extension directory.
- explicit-lib-dependency libhandy: switching to pkgconfig(libhandy-1)
  would silence the warning.


===== 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.
     Note: GPL-3.0-or-later AND CC0-1.0 AND MIT — all Fedora-allowed.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU
     General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License,
     Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3
     and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
     Version 3", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright*
     MIT License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Creative
     Commons CC0 1.0 and/or GNU General Public License, Version 3",
     "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "MIT License", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0
     [generated file]". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /tmp/gnome-shell-extension-ddterm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
     Note: Thorough comment block in spec lines 7-13 documents the breakdown
     per upstream REUSE.toml / SPDX-License-Identifier headers.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1,
     /usr/share/glib-2.0, /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas,
     /usr/share/dbus-1/services. These are owned by dbus-common and glib2
     respectively, pulled in transitively via the gnome-shell dependency.
     The package correctly does not %dir these.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
     Note: gjs-typelib-installer is bundled (Source1) and properly declared
     with Provides: bundled(gjs-typelib-installer). No other bundled libs.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     Note: Uses %autochangelog.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
     Note: "Unknown or generated" files from licensecheck are screenshots
     (PNG/GIF), generated JSON, the LICENSE file itself, .pot files, and
     requirements .txt files. All should be fine (REUSE uses separate
     license files for these)
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
     Note: README.md and CHANGELOG.md are in %doc, not required at 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.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
     Note: All files under /usr/share and /usr/bin.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     Note: The spec has a %prep guard (line 82-83) that fails the build
     if meson's typelib list changes. libhandy is explicit (see Issues above).
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
     Note: Not needed for a GNOME Shell extension.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 18459 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.
     Note: LICENSE, LICENSES/CC0-1.0.txt, and LICENSES/MIT.txt are all
     shipped via %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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.
     Note: SHA256 checksums verified for both Source0 and Source1.
[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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
     Note: Upstream includes LICENSE and LICENSES/ directory with individual
     license texts.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
     Note: Provides ddterm and bundled(gjs-typelib-installer). Requires look
     correct.
[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. fedora-review confirmed the SRPM tarballs
     match the ones downloaded fresh from upstream (see source checksums below).
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
     Note: noarch package, built successfully.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Note: %meson_test runs successfully.
[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]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gnome-shell-extension-ddterm-64.0.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm
          gnome-shell-extension-ddterm-64.0.0-1.fc46.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpiter3ulb')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('natively', '%description -l en_US natively -> naively, negatively, tentatively')
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.src: E: spelling-error ('natively', '%description -l en_US natively -> naively, negatively, tentatively')
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.amezin.ddterm
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ddterm
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/ddterm.com/CHANGELOG.md /usr/share/doc/gnome-shell-extension-ddterm/CHANGELOG.md
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/com.github.amezin.ddterm.desktop "/usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/ddterm.com/bin/com.github.amezin.ddterm"
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.6 s



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 33, packages: 1

gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: spelling-error ('natively', '%description -l en_US natively -> naively, negatively, tentatively')
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.amezin.ddterm
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ddterm
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/ddterm.com/CHANGELOG.md /usr/share/doc/gnome-shell-extension-ddterm/CHANGELOG.md
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/com.github.amezin.ddterm.desktop "/usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/ddterm.com/bin/com.github.amezin.ddterm"
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 4 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ddterm/gnome-shell-extension-ddterm/archive/v64.0.0/ddterm-64.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ae90f16e5feae1404f54ad81ab2be1aab17f41036b0f6cff744d22c0f95869d6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ae90f16e5feae1404f54ad81ab2be1aab17f41036b0f6cff744d22c0f95869d6
https://github.com/ddterm/gjs-typelib-installer/archive/e6e5802db1578dea38494ffc4b63580138ccf749/gjs-typelib-installer-e6e5802.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d3f249ee7b67dc42544dd14754b05e59c714444840c7626a16ce5ed8d4c95593
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3f249ee7b67dc42544dd14754b05e59c714444840c7626a16ce5ed8d4c95593


Requires
--------
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/gjs
    gnome-shell
    gtk3
    libhandy
    pango
    vte291



Provides
--------
gnome-shell-extension-ddterm:
    application()
    application(com.github.amezin.ddterm.desktop)
    bundled(gjs-typelib-installer)
    ddterm
    gnome-shell-extension-ddterm



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n gnome-shell-extension-ddterm --rpm-spec
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thanks for the review.

---------------------


> Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
> file-validate if there is such a file.

It's hidden in the upstream meson installation.

> Duplicate CHANGELOG.md: shipped both via %doc (/usr/share/doc/) and inside
> the extension directory.

That is deliberate. One is makred as %doc, the other is used on runtime. It's a small file.

> explicit-lib-dependency libhandy: switching to pkgconfig(libhandy-1)
> would silence the warning.

The rpmlintrc file from https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/package-review/pulls/4 filters that out togetehr with some other non-issues.

Albert, you don't seem to be in the packager group: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issues/1414#issuecomment-1366738

No, I am not. I should not have assigned it to me yet. Sorry for the confusion. I was looking for participation/collaboration.

I have been sponsored and added to the packagers group. So hopefully it should work now. Can you retry?

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-ddterm
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

Thank you!

FEDORA-2026-1e0a1fd51a (gnome-shell-extension-ddterm-64.0.0-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1e0a1fd51a

FEDORA-2026-1e0a1fd51a (gnome-shell-extension-ddterm-64.0.0-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-b09b67e878 (gnome-shell-extension-ddterm-64.0.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b09b67e878

FEDORA-2026-b09b67e878 has been pushed to the Fedora 45 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-b09b67e878`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b09b67e878

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

FEDORA-2026-3477cad1d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-3477cad1d5`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-3477cad1d5

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

FEDORA-2026-3477cad1d5 (gnome-shell-extension-ddterm-64.0.0-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-b09b67e878 (gnome-shell-extension-ddterm-64.0.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.