Bug 448236

desktop-file-install should probably be called with --vendor="fedora", not "" ?

We are not using "vendor" for the other Xfce packages as well (except for
xfce4-taskmanager), but I can change it if you like. Thinking about this a
little more I tend to agree with you: fedora-xfbib.desktop is better than
xfbib.desktop, because xfbib has no "xfce" prefix.

Do you want me to change this now or after/during review?

BTW: I just found another trivial error in %changelog: "Initial Fedora _Extras_
package" of course is wrong because there are no Extras any longer.

In case where the vendor is not already set, then yes, adding "fedora" is
probably the thing to do (or add "xfce" instead? I'll leave it to your
discretion). And yes, the "Extras" thing can be done without.

As it turns out, there are a couple of other problems, all easily fixable. Need
to ask a small favour -- could you review a couple of my requests in turn? Much
obliged:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=Fedora&version=&component=Package+Review&query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=MODIFIED&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&fixed_in_type=allwordssubstr&fixed_in=&qa_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&qa_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=michel.sylvan%40gmail.com&emailtype2=exact&email2=&votes=&changedin=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=notsubstring&value0-0-0=fedora-review

MUSTFIX:
• own all directories: FAIL
  installs files in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor: need to require hicolor-icon-theme

SHOULDFIX:
• scriplets are sane: add vendor (fedora or xfce)

MUST, passed:
• rpmlint: clean
• package name: ok
• spec file name: ok
• package guideline-compliant: ok
• license complies with guidelines: ok
• license field accurate: ok
• license file not deleted: ok
• spec in US English: ok
• spec legible: ok
• source matches upstream: ok
• builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: ok
• build dependencies complete: ok
• locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale: ok
• no dupes in %files: ok
• permission: ok
• %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: ok
• macros used consistently: ok
• Package contains code: ok
• desktop file uses desktop-file-install: ok
• clean buildroot before install: ok
• filenames UTF-8: ok

SHOULD
• desc and summary contain translations if available: ok
• package build in mock on all architectures: ok
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=647081
• package functioned as described: ok
• require package not files: ok

(In reply to comment #3)
> could you review a couple of my requests in turn?

Of course, I will see what I can do.

> MUSTFIX:
> • own all directories: FAIL
>   installs files in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor: need to require hicolor-icon-theme

Really? We already have an dependency on hicolor-icon-theme, although we don't
require it explicitly:
$ rpm -q --requires xfbib | grep gtk
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0  
$ rpm -q --whatprovides libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
gtk2-2.12.9-5.fc9.i386
$ rpm -q --requires gtk2 | grep hicolor
hicolor-icon-theme  

I used to think that this kind of dependency chain is enough.

> SHOULDFIX:
> • scriplets are sane: add vendor (fedora or xfce)

Will do.

Ah yes. Good point -- hicolor-icon-theme is in the dependency chain, so I'll
approve this review and you can add the vendor when uploading.

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xfbib
Short Description: Lightweight BibTeX editor for the Xfce desktop environment
Owners: cwickert
Branches: F-8 F-9 devel
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

Packages for all branches have been build successfully. Closing.

xfbib-0.0.2-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8

xfbib-0.0.2-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9

xfbib-0.0.2-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

xfbib-0.0.2-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.