Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_VV2FP9Wi93WTVsTHB3TDhjZkk&usp=drive_web SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_VV2FP9Wi93WTVsTHB3TDhjZkk&usp=drive_web Description: Seriously Instant Screen-Grabbing Gyazo lets you instantly grab the screen and upload the image to the web. You can easily share them on Chat, Twitter, Blog, Tumblr, etc. Fedora Account System Username: patrikopravil
Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/a/redhat.com/uc?id=0B_VV2FP9Wi93U0VQMzNrQ2JiV1E&export=download SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/a/redhat.com/uc?id=0B_VV2FP9Wi93VmotNnNDYnNfZzg&export=download Description: Seriously Instant Screen-Grabbing Gyazo lets you instantly grab the screen and upload the image to the web. You can easily share them on Chat, Twitter, Blog, Tumblr, etc. Fedora Account System Username: patrikopravil Hmm. google drive is not best location, I dont know if Fedora review will eat this. If not, I will upload on my fedorapeople
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v1/gyazo.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v1/gyazo-1.2-1.src.rpm Description: Seriously Instant Screen-Grabbing Gyazo lets you instantly grab the screen and upload the image to the web. You can easily share them on Chat, Twitter, Blog, Tumblr, etc. Fedora Account System Username: patrikopravil Hmm, fedora-review did not eat it :)
I suppose you are not sponsored yet. Please follow this guide https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Hi Dimirij, I will sponsor him on the way through this package.
Hi Patrik! First few nits: There is license in: https://github.com/gyazo/Gyazo-for-Linux/blob/master/debian/copyright Please pack it as %license You should replace ahrdocded paths to ruby by this macro %{ruby_vendorlibdir} Also you should pack the gyazo.rb to subfolder /gyazo/gyazo.rb. so: %{ruby_vendorlibdir}/gyazo/gyazo.rb Also there is macro for /usr/share, and Ithink also for /usr/share/applications/ itself. You have missing empty line in %chagelog: - Added and Patched desktopfile xxxx Tehre xxxx * Mon Jul 13 2015 Yosuke Tamura <yosuke.tamura.tp8> Also you may note to changelog that you used this spec file as template. Please put the requires on separate lines. Also there i error -the specfile you provided on google-drive is not the same as the one in SRPM. The one in srpm is better :) You should add man page and mention the config file it is using (as it is the only existing setup for the tool (eg switch jpg x gif or so...) Otherwise the pkg looks really good. Looking forward to have it in!
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/usr/share/applications/gyazo.desktop belongs to %check section (if it works for you)
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #6) > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/usr/share/applications/gyazo.desktop > > belongs to %check section (if it works for you) Hi jiri! All problems fixed and files reuploaded on google drive.
Thanx! Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v2/gyazo.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v2/gyazo-1.2-1.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [0] Dist tag is missing . You need %{?dist} to add to release: -Release: 1 +Release: 1%{?dist} [1] spec is missing in files - %{_datadir}/ruby/%{name}/ [2] there is bug in f24 and gnome shell on real HW - I di d not reproduced in on virtual machine or any older feodra or on any ther [4] rpmlint: Checking: gyazo-1.2-1.noarch.rpm gyazo-1.2-1.src.rpm gyazo.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/gyazo.desktop gyazo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I dont understand why.... Maybe it dont like executable /usr/bin/link ->to-> shebanged executbale script with env? ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jvanek/1337120-gyazo/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ruby/gyazo [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ruby/gyazo [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]: 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. [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 %license. [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]: 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 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). [!]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: 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: gyazo-1.2-1.noarch.rpm gyazo-1.2-1.src.rpm gyazo.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/gyazo.desktop gyazo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: [4] Requires -------- gyazo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env ImageMagick ruby rubygems rubypick xorg-x11-utils Provides -------- gyazo: application() application(gyazo.desktop) gyazo Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gyazo/Gyazo-for-Linux/archive/1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5a4280571ec72483b14847f18299210076e1a37628ba352e9f05ce0a2ce46c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5a4280571ec72483b14847f18299210076e1a37628ba352e9f05ce0a2ce46c3 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1337120 -m fedora-24-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-24-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
Please fix above 3 issues, oonce done, I will rerun the review with ruby plugin on. Thanx!
There are two more issues. 1. There is a %{_bindir} macro for /usr/bin. There are several entries in spec for it to be modified. 2. %attr macro is not applicable to symlinks. First /usr/bin/gyazo in %files section should go without it. Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec? And one little suggestion. Could you patch sript to move out all ~/.* stuff into may be ~/.config/gyazo/* ?
(In reply to Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich from comment #11) > There are two more issues. > > 1. There is a %{_bindir} macro for /usr/bin. There are several entries in > spec for it to be modified. Thanx! Crap. How could I overlook it:( > 2. %attr macro is not applicable to symlinks. First /usr/bin/gyazo in %files > section should go without it. I believe the attr macro on symlink is reaction to the rpm lint warning. Anyway - it od not harm. > > Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec? Without it, the rpm build fail trying to generate debuginfo. > > And one little suggestion. > Could you patch sript to move out all ~/.* stuff into may be > ~/.config/gyazo/* ? hm. On one side yes, on second... It *big* patch. As .config is not always the location. XDG_CONFIG_DIR have to point to this, or if XDG_CONFIG_DIR variable is empty, then ~/.config is used. Considering that this config file is nearly undocumented, and it seems that if usable - then only to avoid imagemagic... I think the patch is not worthy. Anyway - I would like to skip it from review - but may be good practice for fresh packager :)
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10) > Please fix above 3 issues, oonce done, I will rerun the review with ruby > plugin on. Thanx! Ruby: [x]: Test suite should not be run by rake. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. Ruby plugin did not added new issues.
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #13) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10) > > Please fix above 3 issues, oonce done, I will rerun the review with ruby > > plugin on. Thanx! > > Ruby: > [x]: Test suite should not be run by rake. > [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. > > Ruby plugin did not added new issues. and Ruby: [x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi)
All fixed. New version on Drive.
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v3/gyazo.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v3/gyazo-1.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
You have left one nasty rpm build warning in: File listed twice: /usr/share/ruby/gyazo/gyazo.rb Remove this file from %files, it is included automaticay, when you added the /usr/share/ruby/gyazo/ directory. After that I'm ok with the package. Dimitrij, if you have nay mor eissues, please feel free to scream! Thank you all!
> > Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec? > > Without it, the rpm build fail trying to generate debuginfo. Debuginfo? In noarch package? Both f23 and f25 packages build fine without it. > Anyway - I would like to skip it from review - but may be good practice for > fresh packager :) Sure. > Dimitrij, if you have nay mor eissues, please feel free to scream! Thank you > all! No more hits from me.
(In reply to Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich from comment #18) > > > Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec? > > > > Without it, the rpm build fail trying to generate debuginfo. > > Debuginfo? In noarch package? Both f23 and f25 packages build fine without > it. > Thats right. He was probably building as arch at first, then he swaped to noarch, and left the debuginof. Patric, may you fix also this?
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #19) > (In reply to Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich from comment #18) > > > > Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec? > > > > > > Without it, the rpm build fail trying to generate debuginfo. > > > > Debuginfo? In noarch package? Both f23 and f25 packages build fine without > > it. > > > > Thats right. He was probably building as arch at first, then he swaped to > noarch, and left the debuginof. > > Patric, may you fix also this? Tank you two for helping me with this pack and I am sending updated version.
Looks good. Pacakge is APPROVED
sponsored
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/Gyazo
I am sory, but there was mistake in name. I had Gyazo with upper case G but it needs to be lower case. i would like to do new CVS request. Thank you Opravil
You'll need to resubmit a request with the corrected name, and follow the EOL procedure for the old one.
gyazo-1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b6f000cc62
gyazo-1.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3193c9df0d
gyazo-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gyazo-1.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.