Bug 563001

I decided to rename this to xfce4-remmina-plugin for more consistency with the other Xfce plugins. I also added a virtual provides on the upstream name for easier installation.

Spec: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/xfce4-remmina-plugin.spec
SRPM: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.1-1.fc13.src.rpm

Seems you forgot to rename the %{srcname} macro to the new name?
I'll do the review on the weekend.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Seems you forgot to rename the %{srcname} macro to the new name?

No, this is intended. Because after renaming the package %{name} no longer matches the upstream name, I introduced %{srcname} to have a macro for the upstream/source name.

$ rpmlint xfce4-remmina-plugin.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
xfce4-remmina-plugin.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Xfce -> Face, Xref, Feces
xfce4-remmina-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netbooks -> net books, net-books, pocketbooks
xfce4-remmina-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xfce -> Face, Xref, Feces
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/xfce4-remmina-plugin-debuginfo-0.7.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
xfce4-remmina-plugin.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Xfce -> Face, Xref, Feces
xfce4-remmina-plugin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netbooks -> net books, net-books, pocketbooks
xfce4-remmina-plugin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xfce -> Face, Xref, Feces
xfce4-remmina-plugin.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.1 ['0.7.1-1.fc12', '0.7.1-1']
xfce4-remmina-plugin-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xfce -> face, xref, feces
xfce4-remmina-plugin-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xfce -> face, xref, feces
xfce4-remmina-plugin-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources


The spelling errors can be ignored. Xfce is actually correctly spelled and
netbook is a common term.

Please fix the incoherent-version-in-changelog message, the release is missing
there.

The debuginfo-without-sources message can also be ignored.


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

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
 [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
     supported architecture.
     Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     source RPM: see above
     binary RPM: see above
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
     License: GPLv2+
 [x] License file is included in %doc.
 [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
 [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
     SHA1SUM of Source: 7a7726dc22c3e68b45f7b4e0c2c8e5f361207e74
 [x] Package compiles successfully
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
 [x] Specfile handles locales properly
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] Package owns directorys it creates
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
 [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
 [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [x] Macros are consistently used
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
 [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
 [-] Header files are in a -devel package
 [-] Static libraries are in a -static package
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
 [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
 [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
 [x] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
 [x] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
 [!] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install
 [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package contains latest upstream version
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] non-English translations for description and summary
 [x] Package builds in mock
     Tested on: F12/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures.
     tested build with koji
 [x] Program runs
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
 [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

Issues found:
 - The wildcard for the desktop-file in the %files-section is not okay. That
   would match any desktop-file in /usr/share/xfce4/panel-plugins/. I'd suggest
   to write it as:
   %{_datadir}/xfce4/panel-plugins/%{srcname}-plugin.desktop
   since there actually only this desktopfile is installed.
 - The release is missing in your changelog message, see above.

Anything else looks fine, I will approve the package as soon the mentioned issues
are fixed.

(In reply to comment #4)

>  - The wildcard for the desktop-file in the %files-section is not okay. That
>    would match any desktop-file in /usr/share/xfce4/panel-plugins/. 

No it wont. The %files section only applies to the package/the files in buildroot but not to the installed package or the rpmdb. Run rpm -ql xfce4-remmina-plugin or rpm -qf %{_datadir}/xfce4/panel-plugins/* to test.

You might be right was that, but please see my whole explanation why I suggested to not use the wildcard: I do not see any reason to use a wildcard to list just one file. It would confuse any other maintainer who may  has to build that package and let him think there is more than one desktop file. I still prefer to see that fixed before you import the package into CVS. The package is APPROVED anyway.

I will fix the changelog before build. The reason for the wildcart was that I'm lazy and I maintain a lot of xfce panel plugins.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xfce4-remmina-plugin - 
Short Description: Xfce panel plugin for remmina remote desktop client
Owners: cwickert
Branches: F-12
InitialCC:

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

I need to wait with the updates because remmina is still not reviewed.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: xfce4-remmina-plugin
New Branches: F-11
Owners: cwickert

cvs done.

xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc12

xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc11

xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc13

xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

xfce4-remmina-plugin-0.7.2-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.