Bug 755510
| Summary: | Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | nicolas.vieville |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | James Hogarth <james.hogarth> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | alex, codezilla, collura, d.bz-redhat, fedora, fedora, igeorgex, james.hogarth, jan.public, jpeeler, mlists, mszpak, nicolas.vieville, ousia, package-review, pingou, steven.dake, tadej.j, william.garber |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | james.hogarth:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-10-09 05:16:31 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
nicolas.vieville
2011-11-21 11:00:43 UTC
*** Bug 710386 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Hello, New upstream version, so new SPEC and SRPMS files. Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/rpmlint", line 379, in <module> main() File "/usr/bin/rpmlint", line 169, in main runChecks(pkg) File "/usr/bin/rpmlint", line 229, in runChecks check.check(pkg) File "/usr/share/rpmlint/SpecCheck.py", line 143, in check self.check_spec(pkg, self._spec_file) File "/usr/share/rpmlint/SpecCheck.py", line 564, in check_spec pkgfile = pkg.files()[url.split("/")[-1]] KeyError: 'paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz' $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Thanks in advance for reviewing. Cordially, -- NVieville Initial review, although this requires an official sponsor, and I am not one.
I'm not sure how to handle you having multiple srpms. I've done this review on the Fedora 16 srpm
I thought one srpm should be able to build for 15 and 16.
[PASS] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[PASS] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[PASS] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[PASS] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[PASS] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[N/A] 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.
[PASS] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[PASS] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[FAIL] 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.
$ wget https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/master/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz
--2011-11-29 15:31:53-- https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/master/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz
...snip...
2011-11-29 15:31:53 (465 KB/s) - “master” saved [21050/21050]
$ md5sum master paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz
ce12f169445b20e3686b15a3e4c25d6b master # wget
ce12f169445b20e3686b15a3e4c25d6b paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz #extracted from srpm
[PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[PASS] 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.
[PASS] 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.
[?PASS?] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
I see that the tranlations are installed into the forbidden directory but then %find_lang is called.
I think this is correct but need a follow up on this PASS
[N/A] 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.
[PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[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.
[PASS] 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.
[PASS] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[PASS] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[PASS] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[PASS] 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).
[PASS] 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.
[N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[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}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[FAIL] 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.
I see the .desktop file but not the desktop-file-install in the %install section
[PASS] 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.
[PASS] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[PASS] 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.
[FAIL] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[PASS] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[PASS] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[PASS] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[N/A] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[N/A] 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.
[FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
(In reply to comment #3) > Initial review, although this requires an official sponsor, and I am not one. Thanks for the review. > I'm not sure how to handle you having multiple srpms. I've done this review on > the Fedora 16 srpm > I thought one srpm should be able to build for 15 and 16. Yes this should be done, but in this case sources are different and not compatible, so 2 srpm files were build with 2 different sources tarball files. Never mind, I've splitted the files in two independent sets of files: one for F-15 and one for F-16 > [ snip ] > > [FAIL] 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. > > $ wget > https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/master/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz > --2011-11-29 15:31:53-- > https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/master/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz > ...snip... > > 2011-11-29 15:31:53 (465 KB/s) - “master” saved [21050/21050] > > $ md5sum master > paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz > ce12f169445b20e3686b15a3e4c25d6b master # wget > ce12f169445b20e3686b15a3e4c25d6b > paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz > #extracted from srpm As sources tarball files can only be downloaded from github via web links redirected, wget fails probably in interpreting javascripts and then cannot rename the tarball file as the browser can do it. That's why you get a file named "master" instead of paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz. To deal with this and to try to be as closed as possible of Fedora packaging guides, I've modified the spec file and deleted the URL string and kept only the tarball file name. I also added comments in the spec file to explain how to download the right file. Hope this is the right manner to deal with such a case. > [ snip ] > > [?PASS?] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by > using > the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > > I see that the tranlations are installed into the forbidden directory but then > %find_lang is called. > I think this is correct but need a follow up on this PASS I have to install locales in %{_datadir}/locale/$LANG for each translation before calling %find_lang, because there's no Makefile with install section in it for this Gnome shell extension. I've tried several alternatives but none of them were satisfying and causes %find_lang to fail. Every suggestion on this point are welcome. > [ snip ] > > [FAIL] 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. > > I see the .desktop file but not the desktop-file-install in the %install > section Corrected: desktop-file-install added in the %install section > [ snip ] > > [FAIL] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Sorry for that, but the upstream sources lacks of it, and my skill in such things isn't sufficient to produce these translations. Any suggestions for that are welcome. > [ snip ] > > [FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If > it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Upstream developers only provides the README.md file and didn't felt necessary to build a man page for this Gnome shell extension. I hope this explanation would be sufficient and I'm open to any suggestion to modify the point that must be corrected. Here are the new URLs for SPEC files, the new URLs for SRPMS files and the new rpmlint logs. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm F-15 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-15/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-15 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-15/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet Rpmlint for F-16 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-83-gaffc741.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint for F-15 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.specgnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: E: specfile-error error: Fedora 15 needed. Please examine the spec file. gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: E: specfile-error error: line 3: Unknown tag: exit 1 gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: E: specfile-error error: query of specfile gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec failed, can't parse 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: E: specfile-error error: Fedora 15 needed. Please examine the spec file. gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: E: specfile-error error: line 3: Unknown tag: exit 1 gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: E: specfile-error error: query of specfile /tmp/rpmlint.gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm.cdM6aC/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec failed, can't parse 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Thanks for reviewing. Cordially, -- NVieville (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Initial review, although this requires an official sponsor, and I am not one. > > Thanks for the review. > > > I'm not sure how to handle you having multiple srpms. I've done this review on > > the Fedora 16 srpm > > I thought one srpm should be able to build for 15 and 16. > > Yes this should be done, but in this case sources are different and not > compatible, so 2 srpm files were build with 2 different sources tarball files. > Never mind, I've splitted the files in two independent sets of files: one for > F-15 and one for F-16 Generally it's only necessary to review a single SRPM that's going into rawhide. It's assumed that the maintainer can make the necessary changes (including using different versions) for packages that go into currently maintained releases (in this case F15 and F16). Having said that, it probably doesn't do any harm to include the version for F15, but the reviewer should base his or her review on the version going into rawhide. (I assume that the F16 and rawhide version will be the same). (In reply to comment #5) > Generally it's only necessary to review a single SRPM that's going into > rawhide. It's assumed that the maintainer can make the necessary changes > (including using different versions) for packages that go into currently > maintained releases (in this case F15 and F16). Having said that, it probably > doesn't do any harm to include the version for F15, but the reviewer should > base his or her review on the version going into rawhide. Thanks for pointing this to me. > (I assume that the F16 and rawhide version will be the same). Yes they will. Thanks for your comments. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, New upstream version for Gnome >= 3.2 (eg F-16 and Rawhide), so new SPEC and SRPMS files and rpmlint logs. Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-91-g6028eb4.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-91-g6028eb4.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. As usual thanks for your comments. To be complete on this package, if https://extensions.gnome.org/ tends to catch all gnome-shell-extensions even in alpha stage, this package seems still needed to be build separately according to his author: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/83 Probably this would not be true in the future, but for the moment, this review had to go forward. I'm still seeking for a sponsor too. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, No new upstream version this time, but new Gnome >= 3.2 SPEC files and then new SRPMS files more closed to Fedora packaging guide lines regarding package version (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Version). I hope this new scheme conforms to the Fedora packaging guide lines for Pre-Release packages. Caution: old SRPMS files with old scheme filename are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. I also added in this shared folder the SPEC file and SRPMS file for Rawhide eg F-17 (links below). F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git6028eb4.fc16.src.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPMS URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git6028eb4.fc17.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Systeme/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-91-g6028eb4.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git6028eb4.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-91-g6028eb4.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git6028eb4.fc16.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git6028eb4.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-91-g6028eb4.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git6028eb4.fc17.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. As usual thanks for your comments, and Merry Christmas. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, First, happy new year 2012 to Fedora's community! As usual, new SPEC and SRPMS files according to the last upstream release. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: according to the new naming scheme dealing with git commits, previous SRPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. I've also added links to the RPMS files to ease largest testing and installing this gnome-shell extension. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-93-g8149a27.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-93-g8149a27.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-93-g8149a27.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-93-g8149a27.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comment are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, New upstream git version. As usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comment are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, Last upstream git version. As usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git9f25961.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git9f25961.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git9f25961.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git9f25961.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet For F-16 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-100-g9f25961.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git9f25961.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-100-g9f25961.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-100-g9f25961.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git9f25961.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-100-g9f25961.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comment are welcome! One last question: I would be very grateful if someone could give me an indication of the progress of this review. What could I do to make it successful? One last information: I'm still looking for a sponsor for this package (Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR was tagged in the beginning of this review). Thanks in advance for your responses. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, As I was indicating in my last post, I would be very grateful if someone could give me an indication of the progress of this review. What could I do to make it successful? I'm also still looking for a sponsor for this package, if approved. Today, new upstream release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet For F-16 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, New upstream bug correction release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet For F-16 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, New upstream and bug correction release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git170c45d.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git170c45d.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git170c45d.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git170c45d.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet For F-16 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0-g170c45d.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git170c45d.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0-g170c45d.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0-g170c45d.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git170c45d.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0-g170c45d.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville Thanks for the new spec, just as a reminder as I point out in comment #5, you only need to provide one spec file/SRPM pair of links for the package to build on rawhide/f17. This is especially true in this case because the f16 and f17 spec are identical, putting in separate packages for f16 as well just makes it confusing to reviewers. Dan: would you be able to continue your (unofficial) review? I'll see if I can track down a sponsor. Nicolas: the fastest way to get a sponsor (I am not a sponsor myself) is to do some additional unofficial reviews yourself and generally get to know other package maintainers outside the context of this particular package. (In reply to comment #15) > Thanks for the new spec, just as a reminder as I point out in comment #5, you > only need to provide one spec file/SRPM pair of links for the package to build > on rawhide/f17. This is especially true in this case because the f16 and f17 > spec are identical, putting in separate packages for f16 as well just makes it > confusing to reviewers. Noted! Next time I'll do it this way. > Dan: would you be able to continue your (unofficial) review? I'll see if I can > track down a sponsor. It would be great! Thanks in advance. > Nicolas: the fastest way to get a sponsor (I am not a sponsor myself) is to do > some additional unofficial reviews yourself and generally get to know other > package maintainers outside the context of this particular package. Thank you for these precious informations, I wasn't aware of. I'll try to know other package maintainers outside this context. But in a matter of reviewing, as a new comer in packaging (little experience in rpmfusion repository) I would not induce other packagers in error by an inappropriate or limited knowledge of the matter. I haven't integrated all the rules yet myself, and more important what are good ways to solve packaging problems and make appropriate suggestions. I'll try later when my skills in this area will be better or maybe are there any packages easy to examine. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, New upstream and bug correction release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. As mock build system has moved to F-18 for Rawhide, SRPMS and RPMS for rawhide are suffixed fc18. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd25def6.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd25def6.fc18.noarch.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd25def6.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd25def6.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-6-gd25def6.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd25def6.fc18.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-6-gd25def6.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, New upstream (display battery information added) and bug correction release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. I think it would be worth to notice that from Gnome-Shell 3.3/3.4 according to the new README.md file and the website, installation could be done in "One Click Install via https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/120/system-monitor/". As my production host is F-16, I haven't tested this feature and I cannot say if it's working. Maybe this review become useless for these new Gnome-Shell versions, but still useful for older ones (F-16 for example)? Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git68ff8e4.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git68ff8e4.fc18.noarch.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git68ff8e4.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git68ff8e4.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-12-g68ff8e4.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd25def6.fc18.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-12-g68ff8e4.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville regarding comment#18 >I think it would be worth to notice that from Gnome-Shell 3.3/3.4 >according to the new README.md file and the website, >installation could be done in "One Click Install via >https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/120/system-monitor/". >As my production host is F-16, I haven't tested this feature >and I cannot say if it's working. i had recently tried the 'gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor' install through firefox from https://extensions.gnome.org on fc17. (one-click install is neet but was kind of unnerving that you can install/configure/remove a shell extension through firefox by enabling a firefox gnome plugin and going to https://extensions.gnome.org . concerned that would make for a nasty script vector. :'\) 'system-monitor' seemed to work realy nicely in the upper bar (though seemed to only showed info for 1 of the cpu) at some point in playing with the extension it seemed to conflict with the lower tray system monitor gnome-shell-extension-systemMonitor-3.4.0-1.fc17.noarch and seemed to break login during the gnome-panel bar startup until i uninstalled gnome-shell-extension-systemMonitor-3.4.0-1.fc17.noarch and cleared out '.local/share/gnome-shell/extensions' looking forward to both the 'system-monitor' and 'systemMonitor' extensions thanks for working on the system-monitor i will be glad when my gnome panel has all those graphs again. in withdrawl since fc14 ;') keep up the good work, 'system-monitor' is a great companion to 'systemMonitor' :') Hi community, As F-17 has landed on my laptop, here are the latest SPECS, SRPMS and RPMS files for F-15 to rawhide, all updated to last upstream revision for each branch. Some adjustments had been necessary to still in gnome-shell 3.4 requirements for F-17 and rawhide, specially for locales. Note: F-15, F-16 are specifics versions of this package (SPEC file specific too). They are respectively build for gnome 3.0 and gnome 3.2 and will not work on any other release of gnome. F-17 and rawhide package require gnome >= 3.4.0. Rpmlint complains as usual on the source file not found because of an invalid URL (rpmlint logs not provided in this message). Caution: previous version of SPECS, SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git4c5d1ae.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git4c5d1ae.fc18.noarch.rpm F-15 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-15/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git0ae5019.fc15.src.rpm F-15 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-15/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git0ae5019.fc15.noarch.rpm F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gite9e2196.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gite9e2196.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git4c5d1ae.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git4c5d1ae.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet One last comment, this gnome-shell-extension since gnome version 3.4 seems to be able to be installed via https://extensions.gnome.org WEB site, but in this case it is a "per user" installation. RPM files provided here are globally installed and one can activate the extension using gnome-tweak-tool and then reload gnome-shell (alt+f2 and r). Happy testing! Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, New upstream and bug correction release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in my previous message. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git8f21209.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git8f21209.fc18.noarch F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git8f21209.fc17.noarch Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-83-g8f21209.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git8f21209.fc18.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-83-g8f21209.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Happy testing, -- NVieville (In reply to comment #21) Hello (again) Corrected URLs for RPMS of my previous message #21 (.rpm extensions vanished while the copy/paste operation from the Dropbox URLs). Sorry for that ! Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git8f21209.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git8f21209.fc17.noarch.rpm Cordially, -- NVieville Nicolas, Your continued efforts are much appreciated. (In reply to comment #23) > Nicolas, > Your continued efforts are much appreciated. Thanks for your encouragement! -- NVieville Hello Community, New upstream release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitadfe35e.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitadfe35e.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitadfe35e.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-100-gadfe35e.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitadfe35e.fc18.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-100-gadfe35e.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Happy testing, -- NVieville Hello Community, New upstream release (improvement in localization, but some strings need to translated, and nfs shares added to drive section), and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git47007da.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git47007da.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git47007da.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-115-g47007da.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git47007da.fc18.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-115-g47007da.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Happy testing, -- NVieville This mostly looks good, a few next steps: 1) Remove defattr as it is not required. 2) The github downloading stuff looks weird. I'm not sure where the gitsub part came from (although I'm also in the process of working this out for another package myself). Can you make your Source URL mirror the same format used in these other gnome shell extensions? http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro.git;a=blob;f=gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro.spec;h=9eda6cca73b165ad6f0ab392cf740eae45a87aef;hb=f17 http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gnome-shell-extension-pidgin.git;a=blob;f=gnome-shell-extension-pidgin.spec;h=971ad94b5ef0868c2b47648735f3223c64646404;hb=f17 3) The translation stuff looks like it could be greatly simplified using find -exec. 4) I think it's policy to not restart gnome shell automatically, so go ahead and remove the post scriptlets. You should also show the upstream maintainer this review, just for awareness. I'll do a complete (unofficial) package review once all these things are completed. Hello community, Jeff, thank you for your advice. So here are the new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing and modified as possible as you asked for. Rpmlint output are provided too. Caution, as usual previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20. > 1) Remove defattr as it is not required. Done. Thanks for pointing this I had missed. > 2) The github downloading stuff looks weird. I'm not sure where the gitsub > part came from (although I'm also in the process of working this out for > another package myself). Can you make your Source URL mirror the same format > used in these other gnome shell extensions? As you already noticed it in comment #3, this is a real problem. As I'm not the author of this project, I cannot modify the versioning schema he uses. The only URL to download the sources of this extension doesn't contain the name of the file you get when you download it with a web browser. So wget or curl get confused and store a file named "master" instead of a more complex tar.gz name. To go further on this point, if you try curl -s --head https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/master (eg. the download link on the github web page), you can see a new location. And if you try again curl -s --head https://nodeload.github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/master (the new location extracted from the above command), you can see an attachment: the real tar.gz name containing all the stuff looking weird, including the gitsub number. The only solution I've found to deal with this was to follow Fedora guidelines suggestions in including in the spec file all the comments necessary to understand where to download the source file and what to do with it. In such a situation and even in looking at the URLs examples you provided, I'm a bit puzzled on what to do. If you can show me a satisfactory solution, I would be glad to apply it. > 3) The translation stuff looks like it could be greatly simplified using > find -exec. Thanks to your advice, my skill in find and xargs command increased, but seeing the result for the same action as my previous shell script commands, it seems a bit cryptic, even if it complies with the "oneliner" directive. The biggest problem was to rename .pot file only if no .po file was present in each lang directory, and this before making any .mo file. The "if then" statement couldn't be avoided. I hope these changes meet Fedora recommandations and your request. > 4) I think it's policy to not restart gnome shell automatically, so go ahead > and remove the post scriptlets. Done! > You should also show the upstream maintainer this review, just for awareness. I've already invited the upstream maintainer to follow this review a few months ago (https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/77). And more later, I submitted some patches to improve translations or some particular points. > I'll do a complete (unofficial) package review once all these things are > completed. Thanks in advance! I hope the modifications I've made meet your requests. To be complet on this subject, I've also commented the patch directives in the SPEC file as recommended in Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc18.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Thank you again and happy testing! Cordially, -- NVieville Nicolas, I'll sponsor you. To join the packager group you need to be able to do the following things: 1. provide competent reviews of other people's packages 2. produce high quality packaging that passes the guidelines prior to review 3. help coach packagers on trouble points in their packaging Read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group A package should follow the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Since you have submitted a package, I will ask you in the bugzilla to review a couple other people's packages. While you are not a packager, you can still provide reviews to demonstrate you are capable of providing a review of a new package. To execute a review, you would follow the review guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Some example reviews I have done are here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=79500&o1=equals&classification=Fedora&emailtype1=substring&query_format=advanced&emailassigned_to1=1&token=1338582948-9534ec43e4e74cdb0393ec72859aedfe&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=POST&bug_status=CLOSED&email1=sdake%40redhat.com&v1=fedora-review%2B&component=Package%20Review Once you have given a couple high quality reviews of other's packages, I'll review your package submission and we will get it beat into submission for Fedora. When your ready to review atleast two other packages, find some FE-NEEDSPONSOR packages and use the FedoraReview tool to review those packages. The FedoraReview tool can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ Jeff, Please continue to provide an unofficial review. Thanks -steve Will follow up with the source github url in another comment. It does appear that I was wrong about find -exec simplifying the translations, so do as you please.
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[?]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. NOTE: the versioning may change based on github url changes.
[X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
[-]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[?]: MUST Package installs properly. (trusting you here)
[X]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. NOTE: is python3-gobject necessary? I have the extension installed on my system and that package is not installed.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?]: 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. NOTE: license in README.md.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[X]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Patch0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet_fix_gnome-
shell_version_required.patch) Patch1 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-
monitor-applet_fix_gettext_domain.patch) Source0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-
shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: see [!] and NOTES.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.src.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gnome-shell >= 3.4.0
python
python3-gobject
Provides
--------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.noarch.rpm:
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet = 2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17
MD5-sum check
-------------
Using local file /home/jpeeler/reviews/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz as upstream
file:///home/jpeeler/reviews/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 5d0ae1c9b6bb9b3392751d65b80aacad
MD5SUM upstream package : 5d0ae1c9b6bb9b3392751d65b80aacad
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 755510
This is what I had in mind for the github handling: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Basically the source URL pointing to: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/%{gitbranch}/%{github}-%{git}.tar.gz where %{git} is a sha from master. (In reply to comment #29) Steven, > I'll sponsor you. Thank you for the interst you show on this Review Request, and your proposal to sponsor me. > To join the packager group you need to be able to do the following things: > 1. provide competent reviews of other people's packages > 2. produce high quality packaging that passes the guidelines prior to review > 3. help coach packagers on trouble points in their packaging > > [...] > > Once you have given a couple high quality reviews of other's packages, > I'll review your package submission and we will get it beat into > submission for Fedora. > > When your ready to review atleast two other packages, find some > FE-NEEDSPONSOR packages and use the FedoraReview tool to review those > packages. > > The FedoraReview tool can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ Sorry for my late response due to heavy load at work this past weeks (early summer is always very busy). And for completeness, it is now time for the summer holidays with family. I would therefore not available next weeks to answer your queries about this review. But I will surely do my best to answer all your requests as soon as my availability permits. As you asked me for, I'll find some FE-NEEDSPONSOR packages to review, when ready and all Packaging Guidelines integrated (it's coming slowly... but it's coming). To avoid mistakes, is the right URL to pick-up some package to review is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841? Once this has been accomplished, is this Review Request the right place to let you know about it? For today, in the little time I have left, I'll post the last SPEC/RPMS/SRPMS files I made according to the Jeff request. Thanks again for your advice, your indications and to show me the right direction to follow. Cordially, -- NVieville No problem on delays. Yes 177841 is the right bug to find atleast two bugs to provide reviews of. Regards -steve (In reply to comment #31) Jeff, Thank you very much for your review and your advice. This make this package more conform regarding Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Sorry for my late response, reasons are in comment #33 beginning. > Will follow up with the source github url in another comment. It does appear > that I was wrong about find -exec simplifying the translations, so do as you > please. You were right about find -exec, the translations are now in line with the "oneliner" directive and probably are much stronger in catching errors, although a little bit difficult to read. I have kept them. > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > - = N/A > x = Pass > ! = Fail > ? = Not evaluated > > > > ==== Generic ==== > [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and > meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at > least one supported primary architecture. > [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present > Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine > [?]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. NOTE: the versioning may change > based on github url changes. I agree. Do you think that git commit numbers should be replaced by date? About version number, I try to follow upstream numbers and Packaging Guidelines. Any advice on resolving this point would be appreciated. > [X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. > [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required > [X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 > [X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. > [-]: 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 is included in %doc. > [-]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly. > [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. > [X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. > Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) > [X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. > [X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [?]: MUST Package installs properly. (trusting you here) I've followed previous Review Request for this piece of software, and the Fedora existing gnome-shell extensions method to get where and how to install this package components. As gnome-shell extensions actually can be installed in users account tree, but this one is globally installed like Fedora provided extensions, I hope this is the good way. > [X]: MUST Package is not relocatable. > [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. NOTE: is > python3-gobject necessary? I have the extension installed on my system and > that package is not installed. Sorry, I missed it. It was necessary with python for settings in the previous version of this applet (F-15 and F-16). Fixed. I've also removed desktop-file-utils in BuildRequires section for the same reason. > [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > [X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [?]: 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. NOTE: license in README.md. Requested upstream today. Hope it will be accepted! https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/145 > [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. > [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, > /usr/sbin. > [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. > [X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. > [X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from > upstream. > [X]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Patch0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet_fix_gnome- > shell_version_required.patch) Patch1 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system- > monitor-applet_fix_gettext_domain.patch) Source0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome- > shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz) One more thing I had to integrate in the packaging process. Thanks for catching it. Fixed > [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. > [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file > contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported > architectures. It should be as this package is made of javascript and depends on gnome-shell. I would appreciate if someone could show me how to meet this request and to verify it if necessary. > [?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. As there is no upstream test, what do you think if this point should be N/A? > [?]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. Any advice to achieve this would be appreciate if necessary. > [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. > > Issues: see [!] and NOTES. Here are the new SPEC/SRPMS/RPMS files modified to conform your Review. Thanks to your comment #32, rpmlint warnings disappeared. I wasn't aware that such a method was possible to download some sources tarball from github. Very good advice. As usual, older SPEC/RPMS/SRPMS files are no longer available on my Dropbox shared folder (F-15 and F-16 ones are still there). Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git21f7cce.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git21f7cce.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git21f7cce.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git21f7cce.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thank you again Jeff! Cordially, -- NVieville Re: comment 34 Not really. Bug 177841 is just the need-sponsor queue: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html It is not the full list of package review requests. That's this one: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html Hi again community, Thanks Michael for pointing these links too. In response to my own comment #35, upstream developer of this extension, just agreed my request and added a license file to his sources. So... >> [?]: 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. NOTE: license in README.md. > >Requested upstream today. Hope it will be accepted! >https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/145 ... is done! Then new SPEC/SRPMS/RPMS files (older removed) and rpmlint outputs. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd437c9c.fc18.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd437c9c.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd437c9c.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.gitd437c9c.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Quick upgrade from last upstream release before going further. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. I've also added F-18 RPM for testing. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v18-0.1.git96a05d5.fc19.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v18-0.1.git96a05d5.fc19.noarch.rpm F-18 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-18/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v18-0.1.git96a05d5.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v18-0.1.git96a05d5.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v18-0.1.git96a05d5.fc19.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville This works on F17: F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v18-0.1.git96a05d5.fc17.noarch.rpm The current package gnome-shell-extension-systemMonitor.noarch from fedora rpm repositories does not work at all. About the extension: it is difficult to tell which core is running fast with multi core processor. Thanks for the package. And I did not try the other packages The cores show up properly after reboot/relogin. Hello Community, Quick upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide, F-18 and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20. (In reply to comment #39 #40 and #41) Thanks for the feedback! Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitdce200f.fc19.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitdce200f.fc19.noarch.rpm F-18 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-18/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitdce200f.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitdce200f.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitdce200f.fc19.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Quick upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide, F-18 and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20. @Steven Dake, I didn't forget your comment #29: provide competent reviews of other people's packages. But as you told me in comment #34 that delays were not a problem, I think that such reviews will be provided in the end of the last quarter of 2012 (end of November - beginning of December probably). Heavy load with my full time job doesn't leave me the time to conduct these reviews with all the seriousness required. In the meantime, here are the latest packages and SPECS files links. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitec4b4b7.fc19.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitec4b4b7.fc19.noarch.rpm F-18 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-18/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitec4b4b7.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitec4b4b7.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.gitec4b4b7.fc19.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Happy New Year Community! Quick upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide, F-18 and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20. As I didn't forget Steven Dake comment #29 about providing competent reviews of other people's packages, I would like to have Community opinion on gnome-shell applets before trying to achieve such a task. This applet is present on gnome-shell extensions Web site, and can be installed from there (https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/120/system-monitor/). But the difference against installing from the gnome-shell extensions Web site and from this package is that Web site option is a per user installation, package is a system wide installation. Each solution has its advantages and disadvantages, but today I'm not sure that a system wide applet is the best way to do with this type of tool. Advises about that point would be really appreciated. Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.git3f2c93e.fc19.src.rpm Rawhide RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.git3f2c93e.fc19.noarch.rpm F-18 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-18/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.git3f2c93e.fc18.noarch.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-17/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.git3f2c93e.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.git3f2c93e.fc19.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville (In reply to comment #44) > package is a system wide installation. Each solution has its advantages and > disadvantages, but today I'm not sure that a system wide applet is the best > way to do with this type of tool. Advises about that point would be really > appreciated. FWIW : I appreciate the automatic updates (being part of a repository) which come with a system-wide install. The Gnome 3 components should be available from repositories and be system wide. Fixing the "broken by default" Gnome 3 by installing various plugins and extensions from web sites is not preferred. I really hope that all the basic extensions will end up to repositories as soon as possible. Nicolas, My sincere apologies for what appears to be abandoning this review. I can assure you this is not the case. I was on leave from work for personal reasons. I am happy to sponsor you and finish this review. Can you provide an updated src.rpm with latest upstream and link to some sample reviews you have executed? Also only provide a f18 src rpm or rawhide src rpm (and spec) in your review request as per the template. Thanks -steve Steven, > My sincere apologies for what appears to be abandoning this review. I can > assure you this is not the case. I was on leave from work for personal > reasons. I never had a doubt about this. As free open sources software relies on volunteers, and as you already stated in this thread "delays are not a problem", it's Ok for me. For my part, I apologies too for not posting anything from January 2013, but actually I have to face some heavy load at work. Life and kids needs also some time. So my main problem on this review request is the lack of time to proceed to reviews of others review requests. I know this is bad, but actually, I can't release the time needed by reviewing others review requests. As this will also be new for me (I never reviewed someone else package), I have to inform myself on this subject and need the time to do this. I'm very sorry for that. > I am happy to sponsor you and finish this review. Can you provide an > updated src.rpm with latest upstream and link to some sample reviews you > have executed? As the process to build new src.rpm and SPEC file, is largely automated on my side, I'll be able to provide new files in a short time (must be at home to achieve this because of truly constraining proxy settings at work). But, for the review part, I have to make a real work on that question (maybe some tools can help in such a task - I must read the fedora-review manpage as soon as the time will be available), so delays will be inevitable. Sorry for that. > Also only provide a f18 src rpm or rawhide src rpm (and spec) in your review > request as per the template. Yes, I'll try to do it, but I know that some users appreciate the availability of packages for their working Fedora release. That was the reason why I always tried to provide these packages ready to be installed for F-17 and F-18. Thank you for your patience and your personal commitment in this review request, I really appreciate. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Quick upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files for Rawhide, F-18 and F-17 are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. RPMS for F-15 and F-16 are still here and can be downloaded through the URL provided in message #20 (be careful dl.dropbox.com had been modified by dl.dropboxusercontent.com in these URLs). New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages are available for F-17, F-18, F-19 and Rawhide. As Steven Dake asked for, I only provide Rawhide SPEC file and src rpm links. But files are still there for your convenience, so one can easily reconstruct the links for other Fedora release (replace Rawhide in the link with F-17, F-18 or F-19) and for other files (replace src.rpm with noarch.rpm and fc20 with fc17, fc18 or fc19). Rawhide Spec URL: http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.git6aac0f3.fc20.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-v24-0.1.git6aac0f3.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Nicolas, Did you happen to review any packages? This is required for sponsorship. Perhaps 2 or 3 packages would be sufficient. You won't be able to approve them, but you can check them for problems. Nicolas, Before I can sponsor you, I need to see 2-3 package reviews you have executed. If you are unable to review some packages to show you understand the packaging guidelines, I will be unable to sponsor you and step back from this review. Regards -steve Steven, Thank you for your constant support. As I said in my previous post, I want to go further in this process. But last months have been heavy loaded in life and at work. From today and for the next 3 weeks, I will be on vacation (family and kids - departure within 5 minutes) with no Internet connection at all. I'll execute the reviews you asked me for on my return (and an update of the package too). Thank you so much for your patience. Cordially, -- NVieville NVieville, Hope your travel was enjoyable :) any updates on your end? Nicolas, as Steven wrote three months ago, is there any update on this? It is a really useful extension that I like to use with Fedora 20. Thanks for your excellent work, Pablo Hello Community, As Pablo pointed it, this extension needs update in order to work with F-20, so: quick upgrade from last upstream release only for F-20 and Rawhide. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided. New rpmlint reports provided too. As usual, new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages are available for F-18, F-19, but be careful URLs were modified because last upstream updates broke this extension for gnome-shell 3.6 and 3.8. These RPMS were built from the old commit cc86a28, so in order to download them one have to compose an URL like the one provided below for Rawhide but have to replace "Rawhide" with "F-18" or "F-19", "git9ce5c5b" with "gitcc86a28", "fc21" with "fc18" or "fc19" and "src.rpm" with "noarch.rpm". For F-20 one have to apply same scheme as above but have to keep "git9ce5c5b". To summarize here is one correct URL for the noarch.rpm file for F-20 ;) : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-20/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git9ce5c5b.fc20.noarch.rpm Happy downloading and testing. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git9ce5c5b.fc21.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git9ce5c5b.fc21.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville They say no news is good news. But I’m afraid this might not be the case. I cannot review the package, although I can point to an unsatisfied dependency (it might be a bug). In preferences, the fan tab requires lm_sensors to be able to select a sensor. Well, I have all lm_sensors pagackage installed (even the debuginfo). Is another dependency missing here? Many thanks for your help, Pablo (In reply to Pablo Rodríguez from comment #56) > They say no news is good news. But I’m afraid this might not be the case. > > I cannot review the package, although I can point to an unsatisfied > dependency (it might be a bug). > > In preferences, the fan tab requires lm_sensors to be able to select a > sensor. Well, I have all lm_sensors pagackage installed (even the > debuginfo). Is another dependency missing here? Thank you for reporting this upstream: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/236 I've already noticed this bug, but never tried to fix it, nor I reported upstream. I thought it was due to my laptop not so compatible with lm_sensors, but I'm (was) probably wrong. Cordially, -- NVieville (In reply to nicolas.vieville from comment #57) > Thank you for reporting this upstream: > > https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/236 > > I've already noticed this bug, but never tried to fix it, nor I reported > upstream. I thought it was due to my laptop not so compatible with > lm_sensors, but I'm (was) probably wrong. Well, I don’t know whether my laptop is supported by lm_sensors. I think it might be, since my laptop is rather old. I guess packaging is right, although the software itself might not be totally bug-free. Cheers, Pablo Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20 and Rawhide). New rpmlint reports provided too. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git32dff76.fc21.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git32dff76.fc21.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20 and Rawhide - see above to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-20 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git1b632f9.fc21.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git1b632f9.fc21.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Many thanks for your new release, Nicolas. I recompiled and installed it on my computer. Any plans to include this package in the repositories? Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20, ***new*** F-21 and Rawhide - see above to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-20 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.gita232cb0.fc22.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.gita232cb0.fc22.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville This review is nearly 3 years old. Nicolas, it looks like over time you've been informed several times that you need to review other packages to become a packager, which would allow you to maintain this package in the official fedora repository. I assure you that over these 3 years, you've learned enough to review some other packages. However, if you don't care to become a fedora packager, may I suggest putting this package in a copr repo? https://fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/UserDocs Another option would be to find an existing packager to take ownership. Perhaps asking on the dev list would be appropriate. In short, I recommend one of the following (ordered by preference): A. Become a packager. The primary hurdle holding you back is two package reviews. B. If you want to maintain the package yourself and don't want to do package reviews, create a copr repo for your package. C. Find a packager to take full ownership of this package. I hope that you'll choose one of the above options and not continue updating this bug indefinitely. Choosing that path is not really resolvable. Let me know if you have any questions! Jeff Jeff, Thank you for your message and the clarification you provided. I know that I must review some other packages in order to become a Fedora packager if I want this package being a part of Fedora. I thought (maybe my fault) that I could find the time to achieve at least two reviews. My full time job isn't in the IT and is taking me much time (it's a full time job ;)) ), I can only work on packaging on my free time (after the time for family). However, as you suggested it, and in order to comply with your option A, I approached two candidates for packaging through there review requests asking them if they would be interested by an unofficial review from my part. No response for the moment. Maybe, I should have choose more recent review requests. I'll wait for a little time about them, and will choose more recent review request in case I get no response in the next week. I thank you very much for your encouragement, but when I look at the documentation about packaging for Fedora, I find some topics on which I think I don't have the knowledge necessary to achieve a review on myself without a great investment in time to get them (for example packages containing binary libraries, or ruby, python, .js packages). But, if needed I will find the time to document myself (it's not so difficult, it's only a question of time). Thank you again for your interest. I'll post here and let you know as soon as I have news about the unofficial reviews. Cordially, -- NVieville You don't need to ask permission for reviewing other packages. Just review the package so that you can show a sponsor, "Hey, I know enough about packaging to be trusted to generally do the right thing." A good start is utilization of the fedora-review tool (mentioned here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process). Perhaps you can even find another gnome extension to package in order to use the knowledge you've learned. I understand that there is a lot to learn about packaging, but your reviews nor your official package submission has to be perfect. That's one thing the entire process is designed to do - that is correct your mistakes. I can't approve you to be a packager, but I can look over your package reviews to make it easier for your package reviews to be reviewed. I'm trying to do everything I can for you here :) That said, if nothing happens within a very long time span, say 6 months, I'll probably un-CC myself from this bug. (In reply to Jeff Peeler from comment #65) > You don't need to ask permission for reviewing other packages. Ok. > Just review > the package so that you can show a sponsor, "Hey, I know enough about > packaging to be trusted to generally do the right thing." A good start is > utilization of the fedora-review tool (mentioned here > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process). Perhaps you can even > find another gnome extension to package in order to use the knowledge you've > learned. Thanks. I've already search in the review request list for some packages I've got some knowledge, and it will be my preferred search method. > I understand that there is a lot to learn about packaging, but your reviews > nor your official package submission has to be perfect. That's one thing the > entire process is designed to do - that is correct your mistakes. > > I can't approve you to be a packager, but I can look over your package > reviews to make it easier for your package reviews to be reviewed. I'm > trying to do everything I can for you here :) Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. > That said, if nothing happens > within a very long time span, say 6 months, I'll probably un-CC myself from > this bug. Understood and I found this normal. I'll let you know what, when and where. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20, F-21 and Rawhide - see above to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-20, F-21 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git59767af.fc22.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git59767af.fc22.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. In order to make this review going further, I began to make an unofficial review of the package gwakeonlan: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060419 I'll let you know about the second package review later. Cordially, -- NVieville Nicholas, many thanks for the new package. I have just downloaded and recompiled for F20 with "rpmbuild --rebuild --clean". But when I try to install it with "rpm -Uhv", I get the following warning: # rpm -Uhv rpm/RPMS/noarch/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git59767af.fc20.noarch.rpm Preparing... ################################# [100%] package gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.gita232cb0.fc20.noarch (which is newer than gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.git59767af.fc20.noarch) is already installed I wonder whether there is something wrong in the package. Many thanks for your help, Pablo Pablo, As this package is not yet approved, I voluntary do not bump release version for each upgrade I do. The only thing I do is to update the git hash number, but as this is a hash, new upgrade doesn't mean that this number will be superior to the previous one. So to achieve the installation, I usually proceed with one of the two command lines below, depending of the git hash number: yum install --nogpgcheck /path_to/the_package.rpm or yum downgrade --nogpgcheck /path_to/the_package.rpm Hope this will help you to install this package in all cases. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, New unofficial review began for python-pygeoip packages here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155400 Another one has also began but without any response for the moment (maybe this one is too old): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039323 These make 3 reviews began (with the one cited above in comment #67). Hope this will fit the Fedora packaging recommendations. Any comment about this are welcome. Cordially, -- NVieville (In reply to nicolas.vieville from comment #69) > Pablo, > > As this package is not yet approved, I voluntary do not bump release version > for each upgrade I do. The only thing I do is to update the git hash number, > but as this is a hash, new upgrade doesn't mean that this number will be > superior to the previous one. Sorry for the noise, Nicolas. I didn’t know this was intended. Pablo Pablo, According to these rules https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages I shouldn't have used only the git hash in the version of the package. Simply adding the date before the git hash for each update would have not lead you in a puzzled situation. Apologies for that. I'll try to correct this for the next updates. Thank you for pointing this issue. Cordially, -- NVieville Sorry about the silence here. Your package reviews seem good and I think you've learned a little more about what the expectations are for Fedora in doing them. This bug properly has FE-NEEDSPONSOR set (I can't sponsor), so if you don't hear anything in a few days (since this comment will produce an email) I'd reach out to the fedora development list. I believe that all that's required is for a sponsor to approve your review and then an scm request can be done. (In reply to Jeff Peeler from comment #73) > Sorry about the silence here. Delay is not a problem for me. > Your package reviews seem good and I think you've learned a little more about > what the expectations are for Fedora in doing them. This bug properly has > FE-NEEDSPONSOR set (I can't sponsor), so if you don't hear anything in a few > days (since this comment will produce an email) I'd reach out to the fedora > development list. I believe that all that's required is for a sponsor to > approve your review and then an scm request can be done. Thanks for your comment and all you've done for this review request. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20, F-21 and Rawhide - see above to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-20, F-21 and Rawhide are no longer available. Be careful, as Pablo noted it, and to conform the packaging naming guidelines, correct snapshot version number is now used. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150128gitccafeef.fc22.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150128gitccafeef.fc22.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, Last upgrade from last upstream release with bug fix in menu. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20, F-21 and Rawhide - see above to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-20, F-21 and Rawhide are no longer available. Sorry for the two posts in a short time, but the bug introduced in the previous one shouldn't be kept longer. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150129git6b9973e.fc22.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150129git6b9973e.fc22.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20, F-21 and Rawhide - see above to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-20, F-21 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150129gitd04c136.fc22.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150129gitd04c136.fc22.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Sorry, wrong URL for the Rawhide SRPM URL and wrong rpmlint message in the previous message, here are the right ones: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150204gitd04c136.fc22.src.rpm rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150204gitd04c136.fc22.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Nicolas, I will add you to the sponsor group and review this package hopefully today but definitely this week. There may be a delay, as I'm not sure if i still have the appropriate permissions. Regards -steve Steven, Thank you for patience. As I have already noted in this review, delay is not a problem for me ;) Thank you for all you did in this review. Regards, -- NVieville Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release (added support for gnome 3.16). New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-20, F-21, ***new*** F-22 and Rawhide - see above #55 to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-20, F-21 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150415git44abf9a.fc23.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150415git44abf9a.fc23.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hi guys, I hope you have enjoyed your vacations. Sorry for asking, but are there any news on this package? Many thanks for your help, Pablo (In reply to Pablo Rodríguez from comment #83) > Hi guys, > > I hope you have enjoyed your vacations. Yes thanks. As my responsiveness on this review request has been largely dependant of my full time job (and my vacations too ;) - see above messages), I didn't want to "ping" to much last months. > Sorry for asking, but are there any news on this package? Upstream source hasn't been modified since my last message (last SPEC and SRPM file on #82). As I'm a newcomer, I was also seeking for a sponsor, and Steven Dake kindly proposed to help me, and I must thank him hugely for his patience in this thread. > Many thanks for your help, You're welcome. Feel free to make any comment about this review request. Cordially, -- NVieville Informal review: From a quick look: you need to run glib-compile-schemas in %postun and %posstrans, except for most recent rawhide with file-triggers, see my review-request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 . Running glib-compile-schemas in %build is most likely unneeded. You just need to install the xml.file in the the systems schemas-folder. You need to reflect the mixed licenses in the License-tag and add ann additional comment: e.g. "# The entire source code is GPLv3+ except convenience.js, which is BSD\nLicense: GPLv3+ and BSD" . Two javascript-files and the two shell-scripts are without a license-header, this might be okay, but probably it should be stated explicitely in the license-file (COPYING). AN upstream is probably the best idea to get rid of this problem. cleaning the buildroot is not needed and shuld not be doen (except for older EPEL), The schams subfolder in the shell-extensions directory is not needed (just for local installs below "~/.local" . You do not own the shell-extensions folder, see also my review-request for this issue and a solution. I think the %if-clause at the top of the spec-file is not needed any longer, because FC17 has reached EOL several years ago. That's all after a quick look. I try to look into it deeper after coming back from work. Jens Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release (added support for gnome 3.18). Thanks to Jens Lody the spec file has been reworked to fit his advices. Thank you Jens. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-21, F-22, ***new*** F-23 and Rawhide - see above #55 to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-21, F-22 and Rawhide are no longer available. As F-20 reached EOL, corresponding files won't be updated any more, and will still in a previous version. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150930git81d1c08.fc24.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20150930git81d1c08.fc24.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville pbrobinson's scratch build of gnome-dvb-daemon?#451a118009234eac9e3f06f465b00cf93478a5d5 for git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gnome-dvb-daemon?#451a118009234eac9e3f06f465b00cf93478a5d5 and rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11560895 Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release (added support for gnome 3.20). New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-22, F-23, ***new*** F-24 and Rawhide - see above #55 to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-22, F-23 and Rawhide are no longer available. As F-21 reached EOL, corresponding files won't be updated any more, and will still in a previous version. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20160405git8b31f07.fc25.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20160405git8b31f07.fc25.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville I would be good to have it directly in Fedora. Steven, will you have some time to do the review? Marcin, I had a job change about 2 years ago, and as a result have not had time to stay on top of the Fedora packaging process. I typically work 12-16 hour days 5-7 days a week so I really don't have time to balance Fedora in my schedule. I intend to revoke my proven packager and fedora package reviewer status. I won't be able to finish this review. In the future if I end up working on Fedora again, I may consider applying as a package reviewer. I apologize for not letting folks in this review know my personal situation earlier. Regards -steve Sure, I understand. Thanks for a quick response. Good luck with finding your work-life balance! Hello Steven, Thank you very much for your answer, and like Marcin and what I've already said in this review, I understand completely your dilemma with your schedules. FOSS for much of its users-contributors has more to do with hobby and convictions than full time job. It's somewhere all its charm and uniqueness. I understand your apologizes, but don't worry, we all do our best in much as we can. Good luck in your new life. Regards, -- NVieville Hello Community, As F-25 landed on my laptop here is the last packages for this gnome-shell extension for F-25 and Rawhide. As nothing new from upstream has been pushed, git commit number and date are still the same as my previous message. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-22, F-23, F-24, ***new*** F-25 and Rawhide - see above #55 to know how to compose the URL to download RPMS noarch files). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-23, F-24 and Rawhide are no longer available. As F-22 reached EOL, corresponding files won't be updated any more, and will still in a previous version. Rawhide Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20160405git8b31f07.fc26.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20160405git8b31f07.fc26.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-24, F-25 and Rawhide - see below explanations for the new way to access RPMS packages for testing). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-24, F-25 and Rawhide are no longer available. As F-23 reached EOL, corresponding files won't be updated any more, and will still in a previous version. As Dropbox will drop the Public folder usage and will convert it into a standard Dropbox folder that's private to accounts beginning in March 15, 2017, here there are new links below. Old links available until March 15, 2017 are still provided as well. Global folder public link where all the SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for all Fedora releases since the beginning of this review (from F-15 to Rawhide) are available: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/oz6ant1xdy3exdy/AAAVeDOfAEaoJ51w-jFm4qE2a?dl=0 Use this link to find the correct RPMS package according to your Fedora release in order to test it on your system. Rawhide Spec URL (old link): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide Spec URL (new link): https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtopekqeazpwso4/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec?dl=0 Rawhide SRPM URL (old link): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20161222git3967cdd.fc26.src.rpm Rawhide SRPM URL (new link): https://www.dropbox.com/s/hz0u5eyhof4n8fa/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20161222git3967cdd.fc26.src.rpm?dl=0 Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20161222git3967cdd.fc26.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, As I don't see on my profile, if I'm part of the sponsor group, I added the block 177841 to this review. Hope this was the right way. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release. New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-24, F-25, F-26 and Rawhide - see below explanations for the new way to access RPMS packages for testing). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-24, F-25 and Rawhide are no longer available. As Dropbox dropped the Public folder usage, all the SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for all Fedora releases since the beginning of this review (from F-15 to Rawhide) are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/oz6ant1xdy3exdy/AAAVeDOfAEaoJ51w-jFm4qE2a?dl=0 Use this link to find the correct RPMS package according to your Fedora release in order to test it on your system. Rawhide Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtopekqeazpwso4/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec?dl=1 Rawhide SRPM URL (new link): https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0tsr3b9t03d8kv/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170411git0948ded.fc27.src.rpm?dl=1 Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170411git0948ded.fc27.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release (improvements and gnome-shell 3.24 compatibility). New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-24, F-25, F-26 and Rawhide - see previous message #96 for explanations on the new way to access RPMS packages for testing). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-24, F-25 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtopekqeazpwso4/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec?dl=1 Rawhide SRPM URL (new link): https://www.dropbox.com/s/x55o5ckh6f55uh5/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170501git59f443e.fc27.src.rpm?dl=0 Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170501git59f443e.fc27.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hi, I am a Fedora Sponsor and am willing to take this up. May I just say I admire your persistence seeing as how long this bug has continued. Seeing as the last sample reviews you carried out were in 2014 I'd ask you to pick a couple of current packages in the review queue to issue an informal review of to demonstrate that you have kept up with the guidelines and can review current review requests. This is very important, as once in the packager group you will be trusted to be able to review any future requests by any other maintainer. When you've carried out a couple of current satisfactory reviews I'll give the formal review of your package and sponsor you as a package maintainer. James Hello James, Thanks for your interest in this review request and your proposal to give the formal review and to sponsor me. I've noted that I have to issue a couple of informal reviews on packages in the current review queue so that you can go further with this one. I will not miss to inform you as soon as this is done (I've already spotted some interesting packages that it would be nice to have in Fedora). Thank you again for your proposal. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello James, As you asked me to issue a couple of unofficial reviews of packages in the current review queue, here is the ones I began: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444552 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451054 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451066 For the moment no feedback from them. Hope this will fit the requirement to go further in this review request. I've spotted another one in the review queue I'd like to see in Fedora, but the complexity of this one need more work to take in account all the aspects (#1416705 in case of curiosity). I don't know yet if I could reach the end. Any comments are welcome, Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release (improvements in translations, especially for French). New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-24, F-25, F-26 and Rawhide - see previous message #96 for explanations on the new way to access RPMS packages for testing). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-24, F-25, F-26 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtopekqeazpwso4/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec?dl=1 Rawhide SRPM URL (new link): https://www.dropbox.com/s/4k5ueh38n1t4pwd/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170817git746f33d.fc27.src.rpm?dl=1 Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170817git746f33d.fc27.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville I too am impressed by your persistence. James, what do you think about Nicolas' reviews? Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release (added Gnome 3.26 compatibility, added GPU usage for NVidia and updated translations). New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-25, F-26, ***new*** F-27 and Rawhide - see previous message #96 for explanations on the new way to access RPMS packages for testing). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-25, F-26 and Rawhide are no longer available. As F-24 reached EOL, corresponding files won't be updated any more, and will still in a previous version. Rawhide Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtopekqeazpwso4/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec?dl=1 Rawhide SRPM URL (new link): https://www.dropbox.com/s/bmakaxyaj86ty9w/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170930gitf24f167.fc28.src.rpm?dl=1 Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20170930gitf24f167.fc28.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hello Community, Last upgrade from last upstream release (fixed a bug in battery module). New SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing are provided (F-25, F-26, F-27 and Rawhide - see previous message #96 for explanations on the new way to access RPMS packages for testing). New rpmlint reports provided too. Previous RPMS, SRPMS en SPEC files for F-25, F-26 and Rawhide are no longer available. Rawhide Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtopekqeazpwso4/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec?dl=1 Rawhide SRPM URL (new link): https://www.dropbox.com/s/iu4luf5ckxf9ujp/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.src.rpm?dl=1 Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville Hi, Apologies for the delays on this ... time just goes by too fast. Thanks for the links on the reviews. FYI the dropbox URLs don't work with fedora-review (it doesn't pick up the query so doesn't call ?dl=1) so I've copied them to my fedorapeople space for now. Spec: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec SRPM: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.src.rpm Once you're in the packagers group you'll have similar space for future reviews :) The reviews are fine overall - you don't need to worry about files without a license in them so long as the source from upstream includes a specific license already.... just focus on if there's differing licenses or if upstream does not include a specific license file. Remember to refer to the guidelines wiki pages, especially when there's specific language ones like python, when doing a review and not to only rely on the fedora-review tool ... it's useful but the wiki pages are our source of truth ultimately. I'll post the review for this shortly. Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated".
52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/755510-gnome-shell-extension-system-
monitor-applet/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gnome-shell
Provides
--------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet:
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/archive/61b0a60d74776455785ddb7a95851c2381961f6c/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-61b0a60.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ae0ee48f863bf2d981fbf2e1d4497422678b565ec3c97b47b8e6331d312eae6c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ae0ee48f863bf2d981fbf2e1d4497422678b565ec3c97b47b8e6331d312eae6c
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 755510
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
=== Summary ===
A few style things that are non-blockers but I'd suggest taking a look over:
1) We no longer use the group field in spec files, this SHOULD be removed:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
2) I know there's been a bit of uh questionable and varied version naming with this package over the years but there but it's sensible to have at least some link between the rpm version and the upstream version for users to understand better what they have installed. It helps that you have the git commit and date, but including the version number that upstream uses as the release tag is sensible and preferable.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning
To make the release more readable as well if you are setting a shortcommit (as indeed you are) in a %global for a snapshot build there's no need to condition whether it exists in the release field ... it obviously exists as you just set it and it makes it harder to read.
If you want to do snapshot builds that's fine... but I suggest the version should be the most recent tag upstream and then follow the versioning guidelines for the git tag in the release.
3) Fedora 23 is no longer supported and you can't build for it in koji ... strip out the "if fedora is 23" conditionals ... they can have no effect now and just serve to make it messier.
As I said these are non-blockers and reflect my personal view of trying to make the spec a bit tidier and convey the state of the package to users a bit more clearly, but as the maintainer for this it's your call.
Package is APPROVED and you've been sponsored into the packager group.
Congratulations and welcome :)
The steps to request the repo for your package and building it can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
(In reply to James Hogarth from comment #107) Hello James, First, thank you very much for your review and for sponsoring me for this package. Glad to join the Fedora community. > === Summary === > > A few style things that are non-blockers but I'd suggest taking a look over: > > 1) We no longer use the group field in spec files, this SHOULD be removed: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections Corrected. I missed this. > 2) I know there's been a bit of uh questionable and varied version naming > with this package over the years but there but it's sensible to have at > least some link between the rpm version and the upstream version for users > to understand better what they have installed. It helps that you have the > git commit and date, but including the version number that upstream uses as > the release tag is sensible and preferable. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning > > To make the release more readable as well if you are setting a shortcommit > (as indeed you are) in a %global for a snapshot build there's no need to > condition whether it exists in the release field ... it obviously exists as > you just set it and it makes it harder to read. > > If you want to do snapshot builds that's fine... but I suggest the version > should be the most recent tag upstream and then follow the versioning > guidelines for the git tag in the release. To follow this package upstream github repository for a couple of years, I think that version tags set in it are not really relevant. This gnome-shell extension progress through snapshots providing bug correction and new features. I corrected the "versioning" of this package as you suggested above, taking into account that no version at all is provided upstream. Reading the packaging guidelines, this example seems to be correct: Version: 0 Release: 1.20171005%{shortcommit}%{?dist} > 3) Fedora 23 is no longer supported and you can't build for it in koji ... > strip out the "if fedora is 23" conditionals ... they can have no effect now > and just serve to make it messier. Conditionals removed for Fedora 23, as well those for Fedora 24. > As I said these are non-blockers and reflect my personal view of trying to > make the spec a bit tidier and convey the state of the package to users a > bit more clearly, but as the maintainer for this it's your call. You are completely right, I agree with you, the spec file is tidier like that, and easier to read. > Package is APPROVED and you've been sponsored into the packager group. Thank you very much. > Congratulations and welcome :) Glad to join the Fedora community. > The steps to request the repo for your package and building it can be found > here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/ > Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner Ok. I will look at this and do the necessary. Thank you again for this review and all the precious advises concerning packaging for Fedora and the unofficial reviews I made. Best regards, -- NVieville Hello, Here is the new version of the Spec file and the SRPM file modified according to James advises, and hosted on github. Hope these URLs work with fedora-review. Rawhide Spec URL: https://github.com/NVieville/fedora-gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/raw/master/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec Rawhide SRPM URL (new link): https://github.com/NVieville/fedora-gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/raw/master/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0-1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet rpmlint for Rawhide rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0-1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Cordially, -- NVieville I've already approved it... That's what the + in the flag means. No need to do updates here anymore of the spec or srpm. Just follow the steps in the link I provided to have the repository created you can build in. Sorry James. I thought it was necessary to synchronize the file versions between the review request and the first import in the Fedora-SCM. My bad! Best Regards, -- NVieville No problems - any issues please ping me :) Don't forget to close this review once you've built and pushed it to rawhide. (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet James, Community, One word to thank you all. The package gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet have been built and pushed to rawhide thanks to your help. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=981617 Branches for f27, f26 and f25 have been requested, and package is building for them. I close this review request. Best Regards, -- NVieville |