Bug 610211

Summary: Review Request: unique3 - Single instance support for GTK3 applications
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Matthias Clasen <mclasen>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: adel.gadllah, fedora-package-review, mail, notting, panemade, supercyper1
Target Milestone: ---Flags: adel.gadllah: fedora-review+
tibbs: 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: 2010-07-06 14:34:17 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Matthias Clasen 2010-07-01 18:47:09 UTC
This is a GTK3 port of libunique, parallel installable with the unique2 package.

http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/unique3.spec

Comment 1 Adel Gadllah 2010-07-02 06:45:40 UTC
Package Review:

[+] source files match upstream: 32ab9849994da70f461fc78c59a2b930d294f8c7
[+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
[+] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
[+] dist tag is present.
[+] license field matches the actual license.
[+] license is open source-compatible: LGPLv2+
[+] latest version is being packaged.
[+] BuildRequires are proper.
[+] compiler flags are appropriate.
[+] package builds in koji.
[+] package installs properly.
[+] debuginfo package looks complete.
[1] rpmlint is silent.
[+] owns the directories it creates.
[+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[+] no duplicates in %files.
[+] file permissions are appropriate.
[+] scriptlets are sane.
[+] code, not content.
[+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
[+] no libtool .la droppings.

==================================

[1]: Just noise:

-----------

unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-%clean-section

-----------

=> Approved

Comment 2 Chen Lei 2010-07-02 09:27:10 UTC
Some trivial suggestion:

1.It loooks like BuildRequires:  gnome-doc-utils >= 0.3.2 and Requires: pkgconfig
 is not needed.
2. I seems the minimum version for gtk3 is 2.90.0, I think BuildRequires:  gtk3-devel >= 2.90.0 can be changed to gtk3-devel.

Comment 3 Matthias Clasen 2010-07-02 13:50:58 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: unique3
Short Description: Single instance support for GTK+ 3 applications
Owners: rhughes
Branches:

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-07-02 17:14:01 UTC
The fedora-cvs flag is set but there's no CVS request that I can find.  Resetting the flag.

Comment 5 Matthias Clasen 2010-07-02 17:43:30 UTC
Sorry. For some reason the request got marked as a private comment...

Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2010-07-02 18:01:56 UTC
OK, now I get to ask if that CVS request is correct.  You've pushed this package all the way through review but you won't be the owner?

Comment 7 Matthias Clasen 2010-07-02 18:32:39 UTC
I've asked Richard if he would mind owning it, since he is the maintainer of unique, and this is just a gtk3 port of that. But feel free to add me as owner as well, if it makes your job easier, I don't mind owning yet another package...

Comment 8 Chen Lei 2010-07-03 02:22:03 UTC
Hi Matthias,
Why not rename this package to libunique instead of unique3? Upstream seems call it as libunique, the tarball name is also  libunique-2.90.1.tar.bz2.

Comment 9 Matthias Clasen 2010-07-03 03:21:17 UTC
It is named this way for consistency with the unique package. 
If you look at http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique, you will find equal amounts of references to libunique and unique.

Comment 10 Chen Lei 2010-07-03 03:34:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> It is named this way for consistency with the unique package. 
> If you look at http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique, you will find equal amounts of
> references to libunique and unique.    

IMHO, I think unique should be renamed to libunique.

Upstream renamed tarball to libunique completely after version 1.0.6.

See 
1.0.4 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1058822
1.0.8 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1181378

I think it's more reasonable to rename this package to libunique or libunique3.

Also, only unique tarball is only available at http://people.gnome.org/~ebassi/source/

Gnome site always use libunique as tarball name even on version 1.0.0.
See
http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GNOME/sources/libunique/1.0/

Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2010-07-03 03:34:09 UTC
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Comment 12 Rakesh Pandit 2010-07-05 11:16:49 UTC
Changing status to assigned.