Bug 481333

*** Bug 488198 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Updated SPEC file: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.spec

Updated SRPM: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0.20-1.src.rpm

Build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1220972

I'll give it a whirl

sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/microformat.py 0644
sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/util/urlrange.py 0644
sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/actutils.py 0644
sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/actinfo.py 0644
sugar-update-control.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/pseudo/LC_MESSAGES/sugar-update-control.mo
error checking signature of sugar-update-control-0.20-1.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings.

I consider the non-executable-script things to be mostly harmless in this context.

The incorrect locale is worrisome, upstream should fix that, but I don't consider it a blocker.

The

guideines mention needing 
BuildRequires: sugar-toolkit
but that's not included here.  Why?  not needed?  oversight?

The reason is that sugar-update-control is not an activity, but a component of the base system, used to update activities to newer release, so the BR is not required.  I'll upstream the incorrect locale and take a look at the permissions.

Checked source files and COPYING, seems the license ought to be
License: GPLv2+

%files
%{_datadir}/sugar
looks a bit excessive too, that dir is already owned by 'sugar', maybe something like this would be an improvement:

%{_datadir}/sugar/data/icons/*
# currently nothing (on f-10 anyway) owns extentions, not sure
# here is the best place, but...
%dir %{_datadir}/sugar/extentions/
%{_datadir}/sugar/extensions/cpsection/


Otherise, the rest of the spec is largely simple and clean...
macros used consistently and correctly.

Address these items:
1.  License
2.  dir ownership

and I'll approve this.

Updated SPEC file:
http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.spec

Updated SRPM:
http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0.20-2.src.rpm

Build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1224230&name=build.log

looks good, approved.

(consider using a %{?dist} in Release too, if this is every something you'll want to support in multiple fedora releases).

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: sugar-update-control 
Short Description: Activity update control panel for the Sugar Desktop
Owners: tuxbrewr
Branches: F10
InitialCC:

(In reply to comment #7)
> Updated SPEC file:
> http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.spec
> 
> Updated SRPM:
> http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0.20-2.src.rpm
> 
> Build log:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1224230&name=build.log  

Thanks for these fixes!  Are you going to import in cvs yourself?

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Updated SPEC file:
> > http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.spec
> > 
> > Updated SRPM:
> > http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0.20-2.src.rpm
> > 
> > Build log:
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1224230&name=build.log  
> 
> Thanks for these fixes!  Are you going to import in cvs yourself?  

Yes CVS request is pending.  Once complete will start a build.

(In reply to comment #10)

> Thanks for these fixes!  Are you going to import in cvs yourself?  

Your spec file does not seem to be a direct derivative of mine.
I merged our changes in this new one:

http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/specs/sugar-update-control.spec

Please, import this version if you don't mind.  Let me know if you
would like to also co-maintain the upstream version in gitorious.

(In reply to comment #12)
> http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/specs/sugar-update-control.spec

Just uploaded an updated version with a small fix

cvs done.

Its done and successfully built for rawhide.  Would be glad to help comaintain the upstream as well.  You can also go here https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sugar-update-control and request comaintain on the feodra package and I will approve it.

Steven

(In reply to comment #15)
> Its done and successfully built for rawhide.

I think we should build also on F10, and push it to bodhi as a new package.


>  Would be glad to help comaintain
> the upstream as well.  You can also go here
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sugar-update-control and
> request comaintain on the feodra package and I will approve it.

Thanks, done.

Please, signup on gitorious, and I will add you as a committer to the sugar-update-control project:

  http://git.sugarlabs.org/

sugar-update-control-0.20-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-update-control-0.20-3.fc10

sugar-update-control-0.20-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Why is this being pushed to F-10, when it's
Requires: sugar >= 0.83
can't be satisfied?  (F-10 currently has sugar-0.82.9-4.fc10)

We had talked about the "sugar >= 0.83 and F-10" issue in irc, but I hadn't documented it here in the review (part of the reason why the review lacked "testing it out")

(In reply to comment #19)
> Why is this being pushed to F-10, when it's
> Requires: sugar >= 0.83
> can't be satisfied?  (F-10 currently has sugar-0.82.9-4.fc10)  

sugar-update-control should also work with sugar-0.82.

I would recommend pushing all of 0.84 to F10 though. You don't normally
do major upgrades on a stable release, but I would be surprised if there
were actual users depending on 0.82.x on Fedora 10, because for a number of
reasons this release wasn't really usable on anything but the XO, and not
very usable there either.

The rpm is broken as it is currently in rawhide (code fails to import bitfrost).  The specfile doesn't look correct to me.  It shouldn't be deleting part of the code it's meant to install.  This patch fixes it for me:

---
 sugar-update-control.spec |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sugar-update-control.spec b/sugar-update-control.spec
index d5e16aa..09eda58 100644
--- a/sugar-update-control.spec
+++ b/sugar-update-control.spec
@@ -33,8 +33,6 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 %{__python} setup.py install --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

-# avoid conflicts with standard __init__.py*
-rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/{bitfrost,bitfrost/update,bitfrost/util}/__init__.py*
 %find_lang %{name}

 %clean
--                                                                                                                                                                
1.6.0.6                                                                                                                                                           
~

Thanks for the report.  New builds have been submitted. If you have any other issues please open a new report. 

Thanks