|Summary:||Review Request: dee - Model to synchronize multiple instances over DBus|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Adam Williamson <awilliam>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Jef Spaleta <jspaleta>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-package-review, jspaleta, notting, tcallawa|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2011-01-14 17:47:21 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Adam Williamson 2010-12-03 15:32:38 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/dee.spec SRPM URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/dee-0.4.2-1.aw_fc15.src.rpm Description: Libdee is a library that uses DBus to provide objects allowing you to create Model-View-Controller type programs across DBus. It also consists of utility objects which extend DBus allowing for peer-to-peer discoverability of known objects without needing a central registrar. This is part of Ubuntu's Aytana stuff, and is a dependency for Unity, which I'm trying to work towards packaging. Notes: there's some small licensing issues I filed an upstream bug for: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dee/+bug/684738 . Note that the source is dual LGPLv3 and GPLv3, but none of the GPLv3 bits (test and example binaries) are actually installed into the binary packages, so just LGPLv3 is the appropriate License: tag. rpmlint: [adamw@adam SPECS]$ rpmlint dee.spec dee.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean dee.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag dee.spec: W: no-%clean-section 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. these are all okay for F13+ (F12 is now EOL). [adamw@adam SPECS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/dee-0.4.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm dee.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US discoverability -> discover ability, discover-ability, discoverable I say it's a word so it is a word! (Comes from upstream, actually. I ripped off their description.) [adamw@adam SPECS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/dee-devel-0.4.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Comment 1 Adam Williamson 2010-12-03 15:33:27 UTC
one improvement here would be to use the in-built test suite, but I'd have to package dbus-test-runner too, for that. may do that if I get time later.
Comment 2 Jef Spaleta 2010-12-06 19:44:44 UTC
Just FYI, I don't think I can pass this through review until there is at least a comment from upstream concerning the missing license headers. At least a clarification of intention in the upstream report would be enough for me as a archived statement on record. That being said...... I think you have to leave the GPLv3 in the license field because the srpm does ship with the example and test code. It's not just the binary..we do distribute the srpm's as well and the licensing tag has to make sense for both the srpm and the binary rpm. -jef
Comment 3 Adam Williamson 2010-12-06 20:24:49 UTC
"Just FYI, I don't think I can pass this through review until there is at least a comment from upstream concerning the missing license headers." I think we're generally okay to ship source which has no specific header but is clearly marked with an acceptable license in other ways by upstream (dee is on the project page, and by the inclusion of the license files in the tarball); having a header on each specific source file is a 'nice-to-have', not a must. But I'll CC spot to check this. "It's not just the binary..we do distribute the srpm's as well and the licensing tag has to make sense for both the srpm and the binary rpm." No, it doesn't. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *binary* rpm. When in doubt, ask."
Comment 4 Jef Spaleta 2010-12-06 20:36:04 UTC
Indeed. i missed that. Yippie for expansive guidance! spec file looks good. I just need finish the local mock build and confirm binary build stuff on a primary arch. -jef
Comment 5 Jef Spaleta 2010-12-06 21:10:40 UTC
This is lovely. When trying to build dee against F14 I get an error concerning DBus-1.0.gir not available. On rawhide this is available in gobject-introspection-devel On F13 this is availabe in gir-repository-devel On F14 it appears to be unavailable from any package. Not a review blocker. Just be aware that once dee goes in it is going to be F15+ only. -jef
Comment 6 Adam Williamson 2010-12-06 21:24:34 UTC
that's fine, I wasn't really planning on targeting F14.
Comment 7 Jef Spaleta 2010-12-06 22:33:56 UTC
Looks good. Builds without error on 64bit rawhide under mock. Binary packages appear well formed with correct ownership for files and directories. No executables or associated desktop files to worry about. ldconfig called in scriptlets for install libraries. Minimal docs in the main package with COPYING file -devel subpackage looks good. rpmlint runs have ignorable warnings. Passes review for rawhide and fc15+
Comment 8 Adam Williamson 2010-12-08 18:53:13 UTC
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dee Short Description: Model to synchronize multiple instances over DBus Owners: adamwill Branches: InitialCC:
Comment 9 Adam Williamson 2011-01-14 16:53:29 UTC
whoops, set the fedora-cvs flag to + instead of ?...doh. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Comment 10 Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-14 17:17:13 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).