Bug 454207 (Terminator)

it's my first package, so i need a sponsor

Mathieu, could you please explain (even in French) what you meant by "The robot
future of terminals" ? It sounds pretty odd to me and I am not at all sure about
the meaning.

Sorry, i've copy it from the official site

https://launchpad.net/terminator/

The spec and src.rpm links has been updated

Spec URL: http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator.spec
SRPM URL: http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator-0.8.1-1.fc9.src.rpm

Links updated

--> added %oost and %postun scriptlets to update gtk icon cache
--> modified vendor in desktop-file-install command to "fedora"

Mathieu, in the future, each time you modify the spec, please increase the
release tag and add to the changelog a short description of the modifications.
This makes easier for reviewers (and even for yourself ) to track the changes
over time.


I am leaving for a 2 weeks vacation now, but if till I return your package has
not been officialy reviewed by someone else ( I am not assigning it to me on
purpose) I will see to it.

Spec URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator.spec
SRPM URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator-0.8.1-2.fc9.src.rpm

@wolfshant : I understood, thank you.

updated to 0.9

Spec URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator.spec
SRPM URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator-0.9-1.fc9.src.rpm

I can't do an official review (I'm in need of sponsorship myself!), but I have
looked at what will come up under a review:

X rpmlint is not silent:

terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/version.py 0644
terminator.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/freebsd.py "/usr/local/bin/python"

(Perhaps freebsd.py shouldn't even appear in the Fedora RPM, you can direct the
spec file to not install that)

terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/freebsd.py 0644
terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/config.py 0644
terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/encoding.py 0644
terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/terminator.py 0644
terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/terminatorterm.py 0644

It seems that you create a terminator script already in /usr/bin, and that the
rest of the files /usr/lib could do without the #! notation (and this would fix
the problem).

- package name seems alright
- licensing information formatted correctly and matches project license
- md5 matches upstream
- spec file legible, in American English

However, I would change the description. From the way it was written I didn't
even realize it was for GNOME terminals (I originally thought it was like
screen.) You could use (from upstream):

Terminator is a program that allows users to set up flexible arrangements of
GNOME terminals. It is aimed at those who normally arrange lots of terminals
near each other, but don't want to use a frame based window manager.

- Builds on at least one supported platform (checked on i386)
- Locales appear to be handled properly (with %find_lang), though I'm not an
expert on this issue, so someone else's opinion would be better here
- Runs rm -rf %{buildroot} in %clean, %install
X Macro usage inconsistent:

You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in some places and %{buildroot} in others. You need to
use only one, I recommend the second one.
- Has a .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install

Shoulds:
- Builds in mock
- Actually runs

So, all in all, you have only a few relatively minor issues that I can see, but
as I'm fairly new to this game a second opinion, for example, that of the person
who will be doing the official review, would probably be good.

PS - "The robot future of terminals" is a pun based on the name of the project -
about Terminator the movie series :)

(In reply to comment #8)
> X rpmlint is not silent:
> 
> terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/version.py 0644
> terminator.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/freebsd.py "/usr/local/bin/python"
> 
> (Perhaps freebsd.py shouldn't even appear in the Fedora RPM, you can direct the
> spec file to not install that)
> 
> terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/freebsd.py 0644
> terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/config.py 0644
> terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/encoding.py 0644
> terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/terminator.py 0644
> terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/terminatorterm.py 0644
> 
> It seems that you create a terminator script already in /usr/bin, and that the
> rest of the files /usr/lib could do without the #! notation (and this would fix
> the problem).
> 

I do not agree, these are python script, so they have to be executable, rpmlint
detect the shebang but the executable right this is why it is complainning, a
simple chmod +x solves the question.

There is also a wrong shebang that have to be changed via sed most probably...
The question of the presence of freebsd.py could indeed be asked. The best way
would be to test wether the program really needs it (vs crash without)

> However, I would change the description. From the way it was written I didn't
> even realize it was for GNOME terminals (I originally thought it was like
> screen.) You could use (from upstream):
> 
> Terminator is a program that allows users to set up flexible arrangements of
> GNOME terminals. It is aimed at those who normally arrange lots of terminals
> near each other, but don't want to use a frame based window manager.

hm does not work under KDE ??
Does it really requires this specification ?

(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > X rpmlint is not silent:
> > 
> > terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/version.py 0644
> > terminator.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/freebsd.py
"/usr/local/bin/python"
> > 
> > (Perhaps freebsd.py shouldn't even appear in the Fedora RPM, you can direct the
> > spec file to not install that)
> > 
> > terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/freebsd.py 0644
> > terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/config.py 0644
> > terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/encoding.py 0644
> > terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/terminator.py 0644
> > terminator.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/terminatorlib/terminatorterm.py 0644
> > 
> > It seems that you create a terminator script already in /usr/bin, and that the
> > rest of the files /usr/lib could do without the #! notation (and this would fix
> > the problem).
> > 
> 
> I do not agree, these are python script, so they have to be executable, rpmlint
> detect the shebang but the executable right this is why it is complainning, a
> simple chmod +x solves the question.

I believe that's only the case if you are actually running the files like
executables at the command line. However, the purpose of these files is to be
imported by the terminator program, which is in /usr/bin. It seems to be general
practice to keep files in the python site-packages as 0644, and it seems that
for scripting languages the goal is to keep only modules (for example, for Perl,
.pm files) in the library (%{_libdir}) directory.

That's not to say that it hasn't been done the other way too... in fact, rpmlint
seems to complain about some of the source RPMs that one can download that are
already in the repositories... (so I would guess that folks are somewhat
permissive about this point or were at some point in the past.) However, the
vast majority appear to be with non-shebanged files in %{_libdir} - one of the
main violators seems to be python files in the python package itself.

The program runs with all those shebangs eliminated, and furthermore, with
freebsd.py and related files eliminated.

> There is also a wrong shebang that have to be changed via sed most probably...
> The question of the presence of freebsd.py could indeed be asked. The best way
> would be to test wether the program really needs it (vs crash without)
> 
> > However, I would change the description. From the way it was written I didn't
> > even realize it was for GNOME terminals (I originally thought it was like
> > screen.) You could use (from upstream):
> > 
> > Terminator is a program that allows users to set up flexible arrangements of
> > GNOME terminals. It is aimed at those who normally arrange lots of terminals
> > near each other, but don't want to use a frame based window manager.
> 
> hm does not work under KDE ??
> Does it really requires this specification ?

That is a good point, I copied that description from upstream, but I just wanted
to make the point that it requires X windows.

Created attachment 311631 [details]
patch for terminatorterm.py

Comment on attachment 311631 [details]
patch for terminatorterm.py

Spec URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator.spec
SRPM URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator-0.9-2.fc9.src.rpm

- freebsd.py has been removed

- terminatorterm.py has been patched :
   + fixed vte-warning at startup because of freebsd compatibility.
   + removed block that contain import freebsd.py even if this block can't be
interpreted.

- Removed shebang into %{python-sitelib}/* files.

- Changed description, I have voluntary remove « GNOME » because terminator
works on KDE.

*** Bug 455811 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Spec URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator.spec
SRPM URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator-0.9-3.fc9.src.rpm

 - added version in patch name.

rpmlint is silent on srpms and rpms.
mock is silent on fedora-9-i386 and fedora-9-x86_64.

- your source URL has a small error. you should use "%{version}" instead of the
0.8.1 which is over there now
- rpmlint is not silent at all, I'd say that your fixes (sed + rm freebsd.py)
are not correctly applied. See
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=734181
for reference. In addition rpmlint also complains about the desktop file missing
a required "Encoding" key

wolfy, thank you for reviewing this. Actually I was hoping someone would
review this.

Just a comment for this
(In reply to comment #15)
> - rpmlint is not silent at all, I'd say that your fixes (sed + rm freebsd.py)
> are not correctly applied. See
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=734181
> for reference.

See these lines on build.log:
---------------------------------------------------------------
error: 
%patch without corresponding "Patch:" tag
---------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that rawhide rpm (4.5.90) never accepts the situation like
---------------------------------------------------------------
    10  Patch0:         terminator-fix_terminatorterm-0.9.patch

    31  %patch -p1 -b .fix_terminatorterm_0.9
---------------------------------------------------------------
You should use "Patch: <-> %patch" or "Patch0: <-> %patch0".

well then, fix the %patch line, your package will/should land in rawhide first:)

and do not forget about the desktop file:
terminator.noarch: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/terminator.desktop

Spec URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator.spec
SRPM URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator-0.9-4.fc9.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #17)
> well then, fix the %patch line, your package will/should land in rawhide first:)

 - %patch fixed
   I've built it on rawhide and it seems that's ok
 
> and do not forget about the desktop file:
> terminator.noarch: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/terminator.desktop

- rpmlint is silent for me (on F9) but desktop-file-validate says :

  [builder@localhost data]$ desktop-file-validate terminator.desktop 
  terminator.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated

  Also, terminator.desktop doesn't include special characters, so I think that's
useless to put the encoding key into.
  

You are right: I was checking using an older version of desktop-file-validate.
The newer version does not complain about the "Encoding" key, as
http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-latest.html#deprecated-items
suggests it is deprecated.


I'll be back soon with the review.

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

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [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.
     License type:GPLv2
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing th
e text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: fb61fe78a32b480ec00692cfc9272500e0872ec5 
terminator_0.9.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packag
ing Guidelines.
 [x] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [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, i
f available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64 and i386
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.


================
*** APPROVED ***
================


Mathieu, are you already sponsored ? If not, can you point me to any other
contributions of yours to fedora ?

Wolphy, I'm not sponsored, also it's my first contribution at the Fedora project.
At present I make a package for galaxium-messenger
(http://code.google.com/p/galaxium/) so I think I could point you in few days.

Tres bien, alors. I am a potential sponsor, but I need to see some more
contributions from your part before sponsoring you. 
Remember that as an alternative to contributing new packages, you could also do
some preliminary reviews for other packages submitted to Fedora.

To Wolfy:
It seems that Mathieu has another review requests, bug 456774 and bug 456783 .

To Mathieu:
Please post to this bug entry that you have already submitted some other
review requests. This is needed for sponsoring process.

(In reply to comment #23)
Thanks, Mamoru. I've added myself to the CC: list of those bugs

Spec URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator.spec
SRPM URL : http://mat.boniface.googlepages.com/terminator-0.10-1.fc9.src.rpm

 - update to 0.10


rpmlint and mock are silent

*** Bug 462173 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

(In reply to comment #26)
> *** Bug 462173 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

If Max Spevack wants to take this package, it can, I haven't enough time in this moment to contribute in order to be sponsorised.

see you soon :-)

Ok, I'm going to take Mathieu up on that offer and take the package.  I'm also going to re-open my review request, and mark this bug a duplicate of it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 462173 ***