Bug 513797

Edwin, this would be a good opportunity for you to do a review. ;)

Setting the fedora-review flag as that seems to have been overlooked.

rpmlint has only the following warning on the spec, srpm and rpm:
SPECS/gnome-applet-cpufire.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 25)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The package builds and runs, so I'll be doing a full review shortly.

Thanks Edwin, I will fix the rpmlint error after your review, it's pretty trivial (nevertheless I should not have missed it).

Formal review for gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-1
--------------------------------------------

MUST Items
Items marked as MUST are things that the package (or reviewer) MUST do. If a package fails a MUST item, that is considered a blocker. No package with blockers can be approved on a review. Those items must be fixed before approval can be given.* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ OK
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+ OK
* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+ OK
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
+ OK. The package comes with GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991.
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
- NOT OK: The package comes with GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991. There appears to be no reference to GPLv2+ which is in the spec file.
* MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
+ OK
* MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ OK
* MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ OK
* MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
+ OK
+ $ md5sum -b cpufire_applet-1.6.tar.gz ../../Download/cpufire_applet-1.6.tar.gz 
+ 5837d2abf7eabd1e4985817efccf4bb4 *cpufire_applet-1.6.tar.gz
+ 5837d2abf7eabd1e4985817efccf4bb4 *../../Download/cpufire_applet-1.6.tar.gz
* MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
+ OK
* MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
+ N/A
* MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
- libgnomeui-devel gets pulled in by gnome-panel-devel, I would list that in a comment and comment out the BR libgnomeui-devel
- Why is the BR GConf2 commented out? Either remove it, or add a comment to state the reason (gets pulled in by gnome-panel-devel, which requires libgconf).
? Why do you need gnome-panel-devel >= 2.6? The reason for this seems not documented in the source tarball.
* MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
+ OK
* MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ N/A
* MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
+ N/A (not relocatable)
* MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
- NOT OK: Package does not own %{_datadir}/omf/cpufire/, but only contained files via %{_datadir}/omf/cpufire/cpufire-*.omf
* MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ OK
* MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
+ OK
* MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ OK
* MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
+ OK
* MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
+ OK
* MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
+ N/A
* MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
+ OK
? You did not include the empty files MAINTAINERS, NEWS and TODO. If these are added in the next release, you'll have to adapt your spec file. It may be wise to incorporate these empty files to prevent the hassle later.
* MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
+ N/A
* MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
+ N/A
* MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
+ N/A
* MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
+ N/A
* MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ N/A
* MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
+ N/A
* MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
+ N/A (a desktop applet does not require .desktop file)
* MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
+ OK
* MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ OK
* MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
+ OK


SHOULD Items:
Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do.
* SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
+ OK (file COPYING is included)
* SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
+ N/A
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
+ Builds under Fedora 11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1567422
+ Builds under Fedora rawhide (F12): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1567452
* SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
+ OK
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
+ OK
* SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
+ OK (according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets)
* SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
+ N/A
* SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
+ N/A
* SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
+ N/A


In summary:
- rpmlint warning to be fixed
- license does not seem to match
- comment out libgnomeui-devel in BuildRequires including comment as to why
- either add comment to, or remove BR GConf2 commented out
- explain why you need gnome-panel-devel >= 2.6
- own %{_datadir}/omf/cpufire/
- optionally: include the empty files MAINTAINERS, NEWS and TODO

Thanks for this detailed review. I really like people reviewing carefully and I'm glad I sponsored you.

(In reply to comment #5)
> In summary:
> - rpmlint warning to be fixed

done

> - license does not seem to match

The package includes a copy of GPLv2, but it's unclear wether is "GPLv2 only" or GPLv2 "or any later version". The headers of the source contain no license block ether, so I mailed the author and his reply was that it's "clearly GPLv2+". Quote: "Das steht aber klar im COPYRIGHT: GPLv2+"
In line 298/299 of COPYING also "or any later version" is mentioned, so GPLv2+ definitely is correct.

> - comment out libgnomeui-devel in BuildRequires including comment as to why

Why should I comment out libgnomeui? It's needed, cpufire_applet.c has
...
#include <libgnomeui/libgnomeui.h>
...

> - either add comment to, or remove BR GConf2 commented out

During configure you'll see:
...
Using config source xml:merged:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults for schema installation
Using $(sysconfdir)/gconf/schemas as install directory for schema files
...

Only GConf2 is needed, not GConf2-devel. As GConf is already pulled in by several other BuildRequires I removed it.

> - explain why you need gnome-panel-devel >= 2.6

...
#include <panel-applet.h>
#include <panel-applet-gconf.h>
...
$ rpm -qf /usr/include/panel-2.0/panel-applet.h /usr/include/panel-2.0/panel-applet-gconf.h 
gnome-panel-devel-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64
gnome-panel-devel-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64

> - own %{_datadir}/omf/cpufire/

fixed

> - optionally: include the empty files MAINTAINERS, NEWS and TODO  

I agree with you that including these 0kb files is easier, but common practice in Fedora is not to include them, otherwise rpmlint will complain again. I will add them as soon as they have content.

New files:
Spec: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-applet-cpufire.spec
SRPM: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc11.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #6)
> Thanks for this detailed review. I really like people reviewing carefully and
> I'm glad I sponsored you.

You're welcome. I appreciate your sponsorship.

> (In reply to comment #5)
> > In summary:
> > - rpmlint warning to be fixed
> 
> done

OK: rpmlint is quiet now.

> > - license does not seem to match
> 
> The package includes a copy of GPLv2, but it's unclear wether is "GPLv2 only"
> or GPLv2 "or any later version". The headers of the source contain no license
> block ether, so I mailed the author and his reply was that it's "clearly
> GPLv2+". Quote: "Das steht aber klar im COPYRIGHT: GPLv2+"
> In line 298/299 of COPYING also "or any later version" is mentioned, so GPLv2+
> definitely is correct.

Line 298/299 is not part of the license, but merely an example of how to include GPLv2(+) in your programs. As most people choose to literally take the text (which is not a bad idea), this text can usually be found in headers and/or source files. However, the author did not do so. Stricly legally, therefore only GPLv2 is applicable, IMO. It would be better if the author would include the text and actions as mentioned in GPLv2 (lines 282-311), perhaps you could communicate that to upstream.
OK: If the author indeed confirmed that GPLv2+ is applicable, then you can leave it as it is (but please contact the author).

> > - comment out libgnomeui-devel in BuildRequires including comment as to why
> 
> Why should I comment out libgnomeui? It's needed, cpufire_applet.c has
> ...
> #include <libgnomeui/libgnomeui.h>
> ...

NOT OK: I agree that you need libgnomeui-devel, but libgnomeui-devel gets pulled in by gnome-panel-devel. Again, as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, it should be removed. We implicitly agreed on this during the review of gnome-applet-bubblemon (bug 497525): http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/gnome-applet-bubblemon/devel/gnome-applet-bubblemon.spec?revision=1.1&view=markup
 
> > - either add comment to, or remove BR GConf2 commented out
> 
> During configure you'll see:
> ...
> Using config source xml:merged:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults for schema
> installation
> Using $(sysconfdir)/gconf/schemas as install directory for schema files
> ...
> 
> Only GConf2 is needed, not GConf2-devel. As GConf is already pulled in by
> several other BuildRequires I removed it.

OK.

> > - explain why you need gnome-panel-devel >= 2.6
> 
> ...
> #include <panel-applet.h>
> #include <panel-applet-gconf.h>
> ...
> $ rpm -qf /usr/include/panel-2.0/panel-applet.h
> /usr/include/panel-2.0/panel-applet-gconf.h 
> gnome-panel-devel-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64
> gnome-panel-devel-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64

NOT OK: I'm sorry the comment appears to be unclear. I know you depend on gnome-panel-devel, but why did you state version >= 2.6. This requirement on the version is not documented in the tarball, and AFAICS, is not checked by the configure script. If you indeed require >= 2.6, then this version is also 'very old'. Fedora 7 included 2.18.3-1. As per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, you should drop te version requirement.

> > - own %{_datadir}/omf/cpufire/
> 
> fixed

OK.
 
> > - optionally: include the empty files MAINTAINERS, NEWS and TODO  
> 
> I agree with you that including these 0kb files is easier, but common practice
> in Fedora is not to include them, otherwise rpmlint will complain again. I will
> add them as soon as they have content.

OK.



Open issues:
- superfluous dependency on libgnomeui-devel in BuildRequires
- versioned dependency on gnome-panel-devel >= 2.6 in BuildRequires
- contact the upstream author to see if he would include the text and actions as mentioned in GPLv2 (lines 282-311) in the next release

(In reply to comment #7)

> Line 298/299 is not part of the license, but merely an example of how to
> include GPLv2(+) in your programs. As most people choose to literally take the
> text (which is not a bad idea), this text can usually be found in headers
> and/or source files. 

I told Soeren that I would prefer a license block in the headers, but he did not change that in the last two releases. Obviously not everybody cares about licensing as much as we do.

> NOT OK: I agree that you need libgnomeui-devel, but libgnomeui-devel gets
> pulled in by gnome-panel-devel. Again, as per
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, it should
> be removed. 

You are confusing Requires and BuildRequres here. rpm has a dependency generator for Requires, but not for BuildRequires.

> We implicitly agreed on this during the review of
> gnome-applet-bubblemon (bug 497525):

No, we agreed on leaving gettext in although it's already pulled in by intltool. That's just like gnome-panel-devel and libgnomeui-devel, but I can remove it if you insist on doing so.

> NOT OK: I'm sorry the comment appears to be unclear. I know you depend on
> gnome-panel-devel, but why did you state version >= 2.6. This requirement on
> the version is not documented in the tarball, and AFAICS, is not checked by the
> configure script. 

This is correct, configure does not check for the version properly. This information also is from upstream.

> If you indeed require >= 2.6, then this version is also 'very
> old'. Fedora 7 included 2.18.3-1. As per
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, you
> should drop te version requirement.

Again, these are BuildRequires. I want to make live easier for people who are rebuilding our packages - even on ancient distros if they want.


> Open issues:
> - superfluous dependency on libgnomeui-devel in BuildRequires
> - versioned dependency on gnome-panel-devel >= 2.6 in BuildRequires

explained above

> - contact the upstream author to see if he would include the text and actions
> as mentioned in GPLv2 (lines 282-311) in the next release  

I did twice, but no avail.

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > NOT OK: I agree that you need libgnomeui-devel, but libgnomeui-devel gets
> > pulled in by gnome-panel-devel. Again, as per
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, it should
> > be removed. 
> 
> You are confusing Requires and BuildRequres here. rpm has a dependency
> generator for Requires, but not for BuildRequires.
> 
> > We implicitly agreed on this during the review of
> > gnome-applet-bubblemon (bug 497525):
> 
> No, we agreed on leaving gettext in although it's already pulled in by
> intltool. That's just like gnome-panel-devel and libgnomeui-devel, but I can
> remove it if you insist on doing so.

That's what we agreed then explicitly, indeed. Implicitly we agreed (i.e. I wrote it, you had no comment) on the following lines (lines 27-28):
# libgnomeui gets pulled in by gnome-panel-devel
#BuildRequires:  libgnomeui-devel

And I unfortunately have to disagree with you. If you look at the root.log for gnome-applet-bubblemon (http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/gnome-applet-bubblemon/2.0.14/1.fc11/data/logs/i586/root.log) you'll see the following lines:
DEBUG util.py:256:  Installing for dependencies:
(...)
DEBUG util.py:256:   libgnomeui-devel            i586   2.24.1-1.fc11                   build 330 k

Nevertheless OK: Since it is a BuildRequires and not a Requires, you could leave it as it is according to the motivation below. My personal preference is to keep the explicit (Build)Requires as clean as possible, but it seems the Guidelines give a little leeway on this point.

> > If you indeed require >= 2.6, then this version is also 'very
> > old'. Fedora 7 included 2.18.3-1. As per
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, you
> > should drop te version requirement.
> 
> Again, these are BuildRequires. I want to make live easier for people who are
> rebuilding our packages - even on ancient distros if they want.

OK, since it is indeed a BuildRequires. I must mention I did not read that explicitly from the Packaging Guidelines, though on careful inspection, BuildRequires is discussed separately from the Requires, which includes the statement. I stand corrected and I'll accept your motivation.

> > - contact the upstream author to see if he would include the text and actions
> > as mentioned in GPLv2 (lines 282-311) in the next release  
> 
> I did twice, but no avail.  

OK, alas then.



With this, all outstanding issues have been resolved or otherwise agreed upon, therefore the package is APPROVED. Good luck.

(In reply to comment #9)
> Implicitly we agreed (i.e. I
> wrote it, you had no comment) on the following lines (lines 27-28):
> # libgnomeui gets pulled in by gnome-panel-devel
> #BuildRequires:  libgnomeui-devel

Sorry, I did't recall this detail. You are right.

> Nevertheless OK: Since it is a BuildRequires and not a Requires, you could
> leave it as it is according to the motivation below. My personal preference is
> to keep the explicit (Build)Requires as clean as possible, but it seems the
> Guidelines give a little leeway on this point.

I agree with you that mentioning libgnomeui-devel doesn't add any value. Let's remove it from both our specs next build.

Would you like to support me with this package and co-maintain it? If so, I'll add you to the persons with commit access, so you can do updates or rebuilds when necessary.

(In reply to comment #10)
> I agree with you that mentioning libgnomeui-devel doesn't add any value. Let's
> remove it from both our specs next build.

Ok, done. Mine was already gone before the review.
 
> Would you like to support me with this package and co-maintain it? If so, I'll
> add you to the persons with commit access, so you can do updates or rebuilds
> when necessary.  

Yes, I would like to support you as co-maintainer. Perhaps you could return the favour for gnome-applet-bubblemon since the packages are so similar. This way, we can keep a feeling for both and keep them pretty identical. Both are low-maintenance type of packages.

I have applied for gnome-applet-bubblemon in PKGDB. As a proven packager I don't really need this, I could touch your package whenever I wanted. And as your sponsor I always have an eye on you. ;)


New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: gnome-applet-cpufire
Short Description: GNOME panel applet showing the CPU load as a fire
Owners: cwickert edwintb
Branches: F-10 F-11
InitialCC:

CVS done.

gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc11

gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc10

gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnome-applet-cpufire'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8341

gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnome-applet-cpufire'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8357

gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

gnome-applet-cpufire-1.6-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.