Bug 478399
| Summary: | Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for GNOME panel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dan Horák <dan> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dan, fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | dan:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-12-31 08:39:14 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Lubomir Rintel
2008-12-29 12:51:22 UTC
Oh, yes, I should probably depend on glib-devel > 2.14, since this uses the new -fashioned timeouts; I'll fix that on next spin. RHEL 5 has older glib. formal review is here, see the notes below: OK source files match upstream: ed6b34290c06150f168a31f5e137dbfbf7fcfa94 ircp-tray-0.7.3.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. BAD BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. BAD final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. BAD no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. BAD GUI app with desktop file. - no need to have pkgconfig as BR: , it is resolved from all used -devel BRs, gtk2-devel is a dependency of libnotify-devel, so the BRs should be only "intltool gettext libnotify-devel openobex-devel" - what is the reason for using a file as Requires? (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Dependencies) - the desktop file is listed twice in %files - upstream desktop file installed, but not validated (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage) (In reply to comment #2) > formal review is here, see the notes below: > BAD BuildRequires are proper. > BAD final provides and requires look sane. > BAD no duplicates in %files. > BAD GUI app with desktop file. > - no need to have pkgconfig as BR: , it is resolved from all used -devel BRs, Well, did not use to be the case; but this won't go to EPEL anyway since RHEL lacks IrDA stack, so I removed the explicit pkgconfig dependency in the new package. > gtk2-devel is a dependency of libnotify-devel, so the BRs should be only > "intltool gettext libnotify-devel openobex-devel" Again -- it did not used to be. Also, I'm wondering if the redundant buildrequires are forbidden? It makes a lot more sense to me to depend on libnotify explicitly no matter if gtk does, since it's not guaranteed for non-essential dependencies to go away (though it is not likely in this case). > - what is the reason for using a file as Requires? > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Dependencies) Well, the original reasoning behind that was that I though openobex-apps package is mis-named (it's far more common to either call it -utils, or place executables in the main package and put the libraries into -libs package), and I was afraid it can change. I did not file a bug report for that, and I don't really care, so I changed the require to openobex-apps. > - the desktop file is listed twice in %files Oops, must have been a typo. > - upstream desktop file installed, but not validated > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage) Good catch. Thanks! SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/ircp-tray.spec SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/ircp-tray-0.7.3-2.el5.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > formal review is here, see the notes below: > > BAD BuildRequires are proper. > > BAD final provides and requires look sane. > > BAD no duplicates in %files. > > BAD GUI app with desktop file. > > > - no need to have pkgconfig as BR: , it is resolved from all used -devel BRs, > > Well, did not use to be the case; but this won't go to EPEL anyway since RHEL > lacks IrDA stack, so I removed the explicit pkgconfig dependency in the new > package. > > > gtk2-devel is a dependency of libnotify-devel, so the BRs should be only > > "intltool gettext libnotify-devel openobex-devel" > > Again -- it did not used to be. Also, I'm wondering if the redundant > buildrequires are forbidden? It makes a lot more sense to me to depend on > libnotify explicitly no matter if gtk does, since it's not guaranteed for > non-essential dependencies to go away (though it is not likely in this case). No, redundant BRs are not forbidden and this is the case when it makes sense to use them. All issues are fixed now, so this package is APPROVED. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ircp-tray Short Description: Infrared file transfer applet for GNOME panel Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-10 cvs done. Thanks Dan & Kevin! Imported and built. |