Spec URL: https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd.spec SRPM URL: https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.1.20150726.git9330787.fc22.src.rpm Description: gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd is an extension to show the notification messages at any (configurable) place on the (primary) monitor. Fedora Account System Username: jenslody This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I maintain the upstream-sources at https://github.com/jenslody/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd and the extension on gnome.org: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/708/panel-osd/ Successful builds can be found on my copr-site: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jenslody/gnome-shell-extensions/ and as scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10488607 . I also add a review-request and a request for a sponsor for the other gnome-shell-extension maintained by me, I will add a link if I know the ticket number.
This is the review-request for my other extension: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903
https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd.spec https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.1.20150818.git67968c8.fc22.src.rpm New (tiny updates) versions of sources and spec-file. fedora-review finds no issues, except the issue with owning directories owned by other packages. But this is a must for gnome-shell-extensions, that do not require gnome-shell-extensions-common. They can be the only package that uses these directories and therefore they have to own them. Here comes the informal review of one of my two gnome-shell-extensions. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jens/gnome-shell-extension-panel- osd/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gnome- shell/extensions(gnome-shell-extension-background-logo, gnome-shell- extension-common) [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. [x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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: 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]: 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: [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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.1.20150818.git67968c8.fc24.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.1.20150818.git67968c8.fc24.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gnome-shell Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd: gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jenslody/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd/tarball/master/jenslody-gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-67968c8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c882ed59a8633451acde0c1d754815f6eff232cef3c1b3cc78f5a7983dda7324 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c882ed59a8633451acde0c1d754815f6eff232cef3c1b3cc78f5a7983dda7324 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n Downloads/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.1.20150818.git67968c8.fc22.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Successful (actual) copr-builds: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jenslody/gnome-shell-extensions/monitor/ koji seems to be unavailable at the moment (there is an upgrade running if I remember correctly).
https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.1.20150821git142b176.fc22.src.rpm https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd.spec Updated files. More details in; https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903#c14 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903#c15 These comments in my other review-request are perfectly valid here too.
copr-builds now available: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jenslody/gnome-shell-extensions/build/110257/
Updated spec-file and srpm, to work on rawhide and fc23 with newest gnome-shell: https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd.spec https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.1.20150913gitf52cf19.el7.centos.src.rpm
Date is now fixed in new spec-file, so we always get the checkout-date and not the build date in package-revision. https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd.spec https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.2.20150917git5b0c8ce.el7.centos.src.rpm
New srpm that fixes a minor-issue and has newest upstream (bug-fix in version-check and updated traditional chines translation): https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.2.20150920gitd44e669.el7.centos.src.rpm
Newest upstream, that fixes minor issue, if vertical positionis below 50%: https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.2.20150930git461066d.el7.centos.src.rpm https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd.spec
New upstream srpm (bugfix, x-position after disabling): https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.2.20151002git1f87427.el7.centos.src.rpm
Latest upstream, mainly ttranslation and compatiblity with gnome-shell 3.19.1 . https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.3.20151118git61c1bd4.el7.centos.src.rpm Successful copr-builds: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jenslody/gnome-shell-extensions/monitor/
I will take this review. Would you mind taking bug 1282132 in exchange?
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #12) > I will take this review. Would you mind taking bug 1282132 in exchange? Taken, thank you !
This is a very clean package. I only see two issues, both extremely minor: - The %configure macro already includes --prefix=%{_prefix}, so supplying it again is redundant (but not harmful); see the definition of %configure in /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros. - There is no %check script (this is a SHOULD, not a MUST). I won't delay the package for either, so this package is APPROVED. Fix either or both of those issues when you import the package, at your discretion. 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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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: 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). [?]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.3.20151118git61c1bd4.fc24.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.3.20151118git61c1bd4.fc24.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd: gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jenslody/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd/tarball/master/jenslody-gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-61c1bd4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f50a749a5a3fba151522b1035cd1c7174b571bb7dc89fc5d06b67f35d21dd2e6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f50a749a5a3fba151522b1035cd1c7174b571bb7dc89fc5d06b67f35d21dd2e6 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1246904 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #14) > This is a very clean package. I only see two issues, both extremely minor: > - The %configure macro already includes --prefix=%{_prefix}, so supplying it > again is redundant (but not harmful); see the definition of %configure in > /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros. I will remove it before importing. > - There is no %check script (this is a SHOULD, not a MUST). > I don't know if it would be possible, or how difficult it would be to create meaningful tests. > I won't delay the package for either, so this package is APPROVED. Fix > either or both of those issues when you import the package, at your > discretion. Thank you for the review.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd
gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.4.20151120gitb82b69d.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-02950e984c
gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.4.20151120gitb82b69d.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-76dcbe4208
gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.4.20151120gitb82b69d.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-76dcbe4208
gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.4.20151120gitb82b69d.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-02950e984c
gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.4.20151120gitb82b69d.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gnome-shell-extension-panel-osd-1-0.4.20151120gitb82b69d.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.