Spec URL: http://fmuellner.fedorapeople.org/polari.spec SRPM URL: http://fmuellner.fedorapeople.org/polari-3.11.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Polari is an Internet Relay Chat client for the GNOME desktop Builds on F20, a scratch build is available[0]. rpmlint *.rpm *.spec: polari.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary polari polari.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary polari polari.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary polari 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. While I already maintain some packages in Fedora (mostly mutter/gnome-shell), this is my first package submission, so I will need a sponsor :-) I'm an upstream maintainer of the aforementioned components as well as polari. Fedora Account System Username: fmuellner [0] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6118125
(In reply to Florian Müllner from comment #0) > While I already maintain some packages in Fedora [...] this is my first > package submission, so I will need a sponsor :-) Looks like I was wrong and co-maintaining existing packages already qualifies, sorry for the noise.
Just wanted to package it~
I'll review this.
ping andrea after a week.
I'll make sure this is done within the upcoming weekend.
Some basic observations while trying to try this on rawhide. - You are patching *am, the tarball is disted with automake 1.13, rawhide has automake 1.14 -> you need to autoreconf -fi and BR: automake autoconf libtool - It wouldnt't work with the gjs in rawhide, so had to upgrade to a snapshot (polari:14085): Gjs-WARNING **: JS ERROR: [boxed instance proxy GIName:GLib.Error jsobj@0x7f0562c91df0 native@0x156f720] - It fails hard without telepathy-mission-control, perhaps it should Require: it (polari:27156): Gjs-WARNING **: JS ERROR: GLib.Error dbus-glib-error-quark: The name org.freedesktop.Telepathy.AccountManager was not provided by any .service files
Upstream is now at 3.11.2, I updated SPEC, SRPM[0] and corresponding scratch build[1] accordingly. (In reply to Yanko Kaneti from comment #6) > Some basic observations while trying to try this on rawhide. > > - You are patching *am Patch is included in the new upstream release, so no longer part of the spec. > - It wouldnt't work with the gjs in rawhide, so had to upgrade to a snapshot > (polari:14085): Gjs-WARNING **: JS ERROR: [boxed instance proxy > GIName:GLib.Error jsobj@0x7f0562c91df0 native@0x156f720] Ugh, this is https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708749; the error is basically about not being able to properly print an error message, so this should not really affect normal use. Still, if desired, I can patch it out for F20/rawhide. > - It fails hard without telepathy-mission-control, perhaps it should > Require: it Done, and I added telepathy-idle as well while at it. [0] http://fmuellner.fedorapeople.org/polari-3.11.2-1.fc20.src.rpm [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6176870
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/averi/review/1025110-polari/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps, /usr/share/appdata, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in polari [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [!]: 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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in polari [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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 51200 bytes in 3 files. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. ===== Items to look at before approval ====== %{_datadir}/applications/*.desktop %{_datadir}/appdata/*.appdata.xml %{_datadir}/dbus-1/services/*.service These entries are incorrect given the package will get ownership of all the *.desktop/*.appdata.xml/*.service files, please specify each of the files on the spec file like shown here: %{_datadir}/appdata/org.gnome.Polari.appdata.xml %{_datadir}/applications/org.gnome.Polari.desktop %{_datadir}/dbus-1/services/org.gnome.Polari.service ---- The licenses used on the source files seem to be GPLv2 and LGPL but LGPL is missing on the list of licenses for this package, please update the relevant field accordingly. ---- Optional: Please make use of the %{name} macro wherever you can.
Updated spec and srpm, new scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6183304.
Approved. As said to you privately I'm offering co-maintainership if you need help with the package.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: polari Short Description: Internet Relay Chat client for GNOME Owners: fmuellner averi Branches: f20 InitialCC:
(In reply to Andrea Veri from comment #10) > As said to you privately I'm offering co-maintainership if you need help > with the package. Thanks, appreciated. I don't think it will be necessary a lot (my workflow for upstream releases includes updating the Fedora packages by now), but a 2nd pair of eyes certainly can't hurt :-)
Git done (by process-git-requests).
polari-3.11.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/polari-3.11.2-1.fc20
polari-3.11.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
polari-3.11.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.