Spec URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/chrome-gnome-shell.spec SRPM URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/chrome-gnome-shell-6.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Web extension for Google Chrome browser and native connector that provides integration with GNOME Shell and the corresponding extensions repository https://extensions.gnome.org. Fedora Account System Username: pwalter Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14410195
Hi Pete, You missed python-gobject-base dependency. It was recently added in region51/chrome-gnome-shell copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/region51/chrome-gnome-shell/build/429413/
I'm interested in reviewing this. Can you please update it to the latest (v7.2.1)?
Version 8 with Firefox support released. See also: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShellIntegrationForChrome/ReleaseNotes/8 https://blogs.gnome.org/ne0sight/2016/12/25/how-to-install-gnome-shell-extensions-with-firefox-52/
Here is an updated spec file. Unfortunately, something is off with the 32 bit build. I don't really know what to do about it. It creates a file for firefox in /usr/lib64 even on the 32 bit platform.
Created attachment 1237368 [details] Chrome gnome shell vr 8
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hmaarrfk/chrome-gnome-shell/
Created attachment 1237372 [details] v8 for both 32 and 64 bit probably doesn't work for firefox 32bit
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #4) > > It creates a file for firefox in /usr/lib64 even on the 32 bit platform. You could specify CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR to force library directory and skip cmake's autodetection: %cmake . \ -DBUILD_EXTENSION=OFF \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=%{_lib} Also jq is build-time dependency [1] and not needed at runtime. I think jq-devel is not needed at all. [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShellIntegrationForChrome/Installation#Cmake_installation
Created attachment 1237374 [details] 8-4 As Yuri Konotopov's comments.
Thanks
Once this gets accepted, I don't see why we should have 1 package for chrome chromium and firefox. It should really be split into 3 with 1 base package (and maybe 1 package that requires all 3 browser extensions).
Created attachment 1237430 [details] 8-5 different extensions in different packages
Mark, python-requests runtime dependency is missing. It was added in v8.
Created attachment 1237443 [details] 8-6 python-requests runtime dependency Thanks Yuri
Pete, are you still interested in packaging this?
Mark, if you can get sponsorship, you're welcome to take this package as it seems to be abandoned. As well, if anyone is interested in reviewing this, I am willing to take this package from Pete. I would personally like this package in Fedora, so I am open to being either the packager or reviewer.
Jeremy, I'm not too knowledgeable about all of Fedora's packaging guidelines, especially pertaining to licensing. In either case, I could probably take this one over until it gets too complicated to package. How would I go about getting sponsorship? Mark
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #17) > Jeremy, > > I'm not too knowledgeable about all of Fedora's packaging guidelines, > especially pertaining to licensing. > > In either case, I could probably take this one over until it gets too > complicated to package. How would I go about getting sponsorship? > > Mark If you would like to become a fedora packager, please read the following wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group If you don't want to be a packager, I can take the package instead and another sponsored packager can review it.
Jeremy, The process requires a little reading on my part. I'll look at it this weekend. In the mean time, I have no issue if you want to take this on and publish it. There will always be more packages. It seems eventually I can become a co-maintainer. Mark
Hello, Firefox 52 come really soon (march 7) and maybe Jeremy should take the package, at least for now, to be in time for Firefox 52 ? Thanks ! https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
Sure, I've been too busy to stay active to find a sponsor. Go for it :D.
I also suggest to use Python 3 for this package. See also Debian bug https://bugs.debian.org/851479
Created attachment 1256677 [details] Now uses Python 3
Note, I had to add `-DPython_ADDITIONAL_VERSIONS=3` to cmake as well as change the dependencies.
*** Bug 1418324 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 1259349 [details] Version 8.2
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #2) > I'm interested in reviewing this. Can you please update it to the latest > (v7.2.1)? Done, sorry for the delay. I've also incorporated various other suggestions from the comments here. * Fri Mar 03 2017 Pete Walter <pwalter> - 8.2-1 - Update to 8.2 - Simplify files list - Build with Python 3 (#1343710) - Add missing python3-requests dependency (#1343710) - Update package description Spec URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/chrome-gnome-shell.spec SRPM URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.src.rpm
Sounds good, I'll take a look at reviewing it this weekend.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in chrome-gnome-shell See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache >Please add the following (explained in the wiki): %post /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : %postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : fi %posttrans /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. >You need to add this: %check desktop-file-validate %{_datadir}/applications/org.gnome.ChromeGnomeShell.desktop ===== 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". 73 files have unknown license. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/gnome, /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16/apps, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48, /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16, /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/apps >This is due to a missing requires, please add: BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme BuildRequires: gnome-icon-theme BuildRequires: dbus Requires: dbus Requires: gnome-icon-theme Requires: hicolor-icon-theme [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/mozilla(mozilla- filesystem), /etc/opt(filesystem) >Please remove the following line, this dir should not be owned by this package: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/opt >And change the following: %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ %{_libdir}/mozilla/ %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ >to: %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/* %{_libdir}/mozilla/* %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/* [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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. >See above, some requires are missing. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). >Change the following: BuildRequires: /usr/bin/base64 BuildRequires: /usr/bin/head BuildRequires: /usr/bin/jq BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sha256sum BuildRequires: /usr/bin/tr >to: BuildRequires: coreutils BuildRequires: jq [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. >Mentioned above, missing %check [?]: 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]: 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). [-]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.src.rpm chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. >Does the FF plugin have to be placed in /usr/lib64/mozilla for a 64bit system? or will it work just as fine in /usr/lib/mozilla? If it needs the arched folder, you can ignore this error, if it doesn't, please change this to a noarch package. >Second, files placed in %{_sysconfdir} need to be prefixed with %config like so: %config %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ >The other error has been discussed above, and the remaining warnings can be ignored. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. >Same as above Requires -------- chrome-gnome-shell (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 gnome-shell python(abi) python3-gobject-base python3-requests Provides -------- chrome-gnome-shell: chrome-gnome-shell chrome-gnome-shell(x86-64) python3.5dist(chrome-gnome-shell) python3dist(chrome-gnome-shell) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343710 Buildroot used: fedora-25-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
@Pete, Jeremy, thank you for working on this. @Pete, I understand you might have thought that it was better to continue from your own spec file, but there had been some work by Maxim and I that was done to address the issues that Jeremy brought up. In either case, I'm glad that this issue is being worked on.
Thanks Jeremy! I've put my replies inline. (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #29) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > contains icons. > Note: icons in chrome-gnome-shell > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache > > >Please add the following (explained in the wiki): > > %post > /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : > > %postun > if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then > /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null > /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : > fi > > %posttrans > /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : This is not needed these days. gtk3 includes a file trigger that does it automatically. > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > file-validate if there is such a file. > > >You need to add this: > > %check > desktop-file-validate > %{_datadir}/applications/org.gnome.ChromeGnomeShell.desktop Done. > ===== 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". 73 files have > unknown license. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, > /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/gnome, > /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16/apps, /usr/share/dbus-1, > /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, > /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48, /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16, > /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/apps > > >This is due to a missing requires, please add: > BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme > BuildRequires: gnome-icon-theme > BuildRequires: dbus > Requires: dbus > Requires: gnome-icon-theme > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Thanks. I added the Requires. The BuildRequires aren't needed here. > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/mozilla(mozilla- > filesystem), /etc/opt(filesystem) > > >Please remove the following line, this dir should not be owned by this package: > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/opt Done. > >And change the following: > %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ > %{_libdir}/mozilla/ > %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ > >to: > %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/* > %{_libdir}/mozilla/* > %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/* Sorry, the suggested chrome and chromium directory changes are wrong and would result in unowned directories. Fixed the %{_libdir}/mozilla issue and added a dep on mozilla-filesystem instead. > [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 > [-]: 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. > [-]: 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. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > >See above, some requires are missing. > > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > [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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > > >Change the following: > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/base64 > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/head > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/jq > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sha256sum > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/tr > > >to: > BuildRequires: coreutils > BuildRequires: jq Can you elaborate why you want me to change this? The former is much more clear on what is actually being used ... > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > [-]: 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. > > >Mentioned above, missing %check > > [?]: 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]: 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). > [-]: 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. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm > chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.src.rpm > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. > > >Does the FF plugin have to be placed in /usr/lib64/mozilla for a 64bit system? or will it work just as fine in /usr/lib/mozilla? If it needs the arched folder, you can ignore this error, if it doesn't, please change this to a noarch package. Yes, it needs to be in /usr/lib64/mozilla. > >Second, files placed in %{_sysconfdir} need to be prefixed with %config like so: > > %config %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ No, this is incorrect. These files aren't meant to be user editable config files. > >The other error has been discussed above, and the remaining warnings can be ignored. > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. > > >Same as above > > Requires > -------- > chrome-gnome-shell (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python3 > gnome-shell > python(abi) > python3-gobject-base > python3-requests > > > > Provides > -------- > chrome-gnome-shell: > chrome-gnome-shell > chrome-gnome-shell(x86-64) > python3.5dist(chrome-gnome-shell) > python3dist(chrome-gnome-shell) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343710 > Buildroot used: fedora-25-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
* Fri Mar 10 2017 Pete Walter <pwalter> - 8.2-2 - Package review fixes (#1343710) - Validate the desktop file - Don't own /etc/opt directory - Depend on mozilla-filesystem instead of co-owning mozilla directories - Depend on dbus and gnome-icon-theme/hicolor-icon-theme for directory ownership Spec URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/chrome-gnome-shell.spec SRPM URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-2.fc25.src.rpm
More inline comments: (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > Thanks Jeremy! I've put my replies inline. > > > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #29) > > Package Review > > ============== > > > > Legend: > > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > > > Issues: > > ======= > > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > > contains icons. > > Note: icons in chrome-gnome-shell > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache > > > > >Please add the following (explained in the wiki): > > > > %post > > /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : > > > > %postun > > if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then > > /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null > > /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : > > fi > > > > %posttrans > > /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : > > This is not needed these days. gtk3 includes a file trigger that does it > automatically. Are you not including epel packages? Firefox and chromium should be provided for all branches. > > > > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > > file-validate if there is such a file. > > > > >You need to add this: > > > > %check > > desktop-file-validate > > %{_datadir}/applications/org.gnome.ChromeGnomeShell.desktop > > Done. > > > > ===== 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". 73 files have > > unknown license. > > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, > > /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: > > /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/gnome, > > /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16/apps, /usr/share/dbus-1, > > /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, > > /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48, /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16, > > /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/apps > > > > >This is due to a missing requires, please add: > > BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme > > BuildRequires: gnome-icon-theme > > BuildRequires: dbus > > Requires: dbus > > Requires: gnome-icon-theme > > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme > > Thanks. I added the Requires. The BuildRequires aren't needed here. Fair enough. > > > > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/mozilla(mozilla- > > filesystem), /etc/opt(filesystem) > > > > >Please remove the following line, this dir should not be owned by this package: > > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/opt > > Done. > > > > >And change the following: > > %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ > > %{_libdir}/mozilla/ > > %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ > > >to: > > %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/* > > %{_libdir}/mozilla/* > > %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/* > > Sorry, the suggested chrome and chromium directory changes are wrong and > would result in unowned directories. Fixed the %{_libdir}/mozilla issue and > added a dep on mozilla-filesystem instead. Since %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ is from a thirdparty package, that's probably fine, but %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ is owned by the fedora chromium package... perhaps we should bug the maintainer to add a "chromium-filesystem" subpackage: $ dnf whatprovides /etc/chromium Last metadata expiration check: 5 days, 1:48:38 ago on Sun Mar 5 20:02:08 2017. chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64 : Support for managing GNOME Shell : Extensions through web browsers Repo : @System chromium-56.0.2924.87-3.fc25.x86_64 : A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser Repo : updates chromium-53.0.2785.116-1.fc25.x86_64 : A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser Repo : fedora > > > > [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 > > [-]: 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. > > [-]: 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. > > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > > > >See above, some requires are missing. > > > > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > > [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > > [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > > [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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > > (~1MB) or number of files. > > Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. > > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > > > Generic: > > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > > [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > > > > >Change the following: > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/base64 > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/head > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/jq > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sha256sum > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/tr > > > > >to: > > BuildRequires: coreutils > > BuildRequires: jq > > Can you elaborate why you want me to change this? The former is much more > clear on what is actually being used ... I realize, but the requires are not being generated correctly when probing the binaries built from mock. $ rpm -qpR chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/python3 gnome-shell python(abi) = 3.5 python3-gobject-base python3-requests rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 > > > [x]: Package functions as described. > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > > [-]: 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. > > > > >Mentioned above, missing %check > > > > [?]: 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]: 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). > > [-]: 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. > > > > > > Rpmlint > > ------- > > Checking: chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm > > chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.src.rpm > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell > > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. > > > > >Does the FF plugin have to be placed in /usr/lib64/mozilla for a 64bit system? or will it work just as fine in /usr/lib/mozilla? If it needs the arched folder, you can ignore this error, if it doesn't, please change this to a noarch package. > > Yes, it needs to be in /usr/lib64/mozilla. Alright, this can be ignored then. > > > >Second, files placed in %{_sysconfdir} need to be prefixed with %config like so: > > > > %config %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ > > No, this is incorrect. These files aren't meant to be user editable config > files. I guess this is fine then. > > > >The other error has been discussed above, and the remaining warnings can be ignored. > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > > ---------------------------- > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc > > /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json > > chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. > > > > >Same as above > > > > Requires > > -------- > > chrome-gnome-shell (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > /usr/bin/python3 > > gnome-shell > > python(abi) > > python3-gobject-base > > python3-requests > > > > > > > > Provides > > -------- > > chrome-gnome-shell: > > chrome-gnome-shell > > chrome-gnome-shell(x86-64) > > python3.5dist(chrome-gnome-shell) > > python3dist(chrome-gnome-shell) > > > > > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 > > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343710 > > Buildroot used: fedora-25-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
(In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > > >Does the FF plugin have to be placed in /usr/lib64/mozilla for a 64bit system? or will it work just as fine in /usr/lib/mozilla? If it needs the arched folder, you can ignore this error, if it doesn't, please change this to a noarch package. > > Yes, it needs to be in /usr/lib64/mozilla. > 64 bit Firefox should work fine with manifest file placed in /usr/lib/mozilla
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #33) > More inline comments: > > (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > > This is not needed these days. gtk3 includes a file trigger that does it > > automatically. > > Are you not including epel packages? Firefox and chromium should be provided > for all branches. I wasn't planning on, but maybe I should. :) I'll add them when I do, thanks! > > Sorry, the suggested chrome and chromium directory changes are wrong and > > would result in unowned directories. Fixed the %{_libdir}/mozilla issue and > > added a dep on mozilla-filesystem instead. > > Since %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ is from a thirdparty package, that's > probably fine, but %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ is owned by the fedora chromium > package... perhaps we should bug the maintainer to add a > "chromium-filesystem" subpackage: No, I don't think this is necessary. It's perfectly fine and a valid way to have multiple packages owning one directory: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function mozilla-filesystem exists probably just because it predates that guideline. > > > >Change the following: > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/base64 > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/head > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/jq > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sha256sum > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/tr > > > > > > >to: > > > BuildRequires: coreutils > > > BuildRequires: jq > > > > Can you elaborate why you want me to change this? The former is much more > > clear on what is actually being used ... > > I realize, but the requires are not being generated correctly when probing > the binaries built from mock. > > $ rpm -qpR chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm > /usr/bin/python3 > gnome-shell > python(abi) = 3.5 > python3-gobject-base > python3-requests > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 How do you mean, not being generated correctly? We were talking about BuildRequires and changing them doesn't directly affect binary package requires (which you are querying above) in any way.
(In reply to Pete Walter from comment #35) > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #33) > > More inline comments: > > > > (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > > > This is not needed these days. gtk3 includes a file trigger that does it > > > automatically. > > > > Are you not including epel packages? Firefox and chromium should be provided > > for all branches. > > I wasn't planning on, but maybe I should. :) I'll add them when I do, thanks! Please do! > > > > > Sorry, the suggested chrome and chromium directory changes are wrong and > > > would result in unowned directories. Fixed the %{_libdir}/mozilla issue and > > > added a dep on mozilla-filesystem instead. > > > > Since %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ is from a thirdparty package, that's > > probably fine, but %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ is owned by the fedora chromium > > package... perhaps we should bug the maintainer to add a > > "chromium-filesystem" subpackage: > > No, I don't think this is necessary. It's perfectly fine and a valid way to > have multiple packages owning one directory: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your > _package_to_function > > mozilla-filesystem exists probably just because it predates that guideline. That should be fine then > > > > > > >Change the following: > > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/base64 > > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/head > > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/jq > > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sha256sum > > > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/tr > > > > > > > > >to: > > > > BuildRequires: coreutils > > > > BuildRequires: jq > > > > > > Can you elaborate why you want me to change this? The former is much more > > > clear on what is actually being used ... > > > > I realize, but the requires are not being generated correctly when probing > > the binaries built from mock. > > > > $ rpm -qpR chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm > > /usr/bin/python3 > > gnome-shell > > python(abi) = 3.5 > > python3-gobject-base > > python3-requests > > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > > rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 > > How do you mean, not being generated correctly? We were talking about > BuildRequires and changing them doesn't directly affect binary package > requires (which you are querying above) in any way. Sorry, ignore that last comment, I was very tired and distracted while typing that and for some reason I thought they were requires not build requires. (In reply to Yuri Konotopov from comment #34) > (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > > > >Does the FF plugin have to be placed in /usr/lib64/mozilla for a 64bit system? or will it work just as fine in /usr/lib/mozilla? If it needs the arched folder, you can ignore this error, if it doesn't, please change this to a noarch package. > > > > Yes, it needs to be in /usr/lib64/mozilla. > > > > 64 bit Firefox should work fine with manifest file placed in /usr/lib/mozilla If that's the case, we can probably make it a noarch package, no?
Are there any blockers left I need to address? I'm happy to change it to noarch if that's the upstream guidance, but at the same time I don't think there's anything wrong if it's archful either. Right now upstream install scripts put the mozilla files in /usr/lib64 and I would like to avoid adding downstream hacks to move this to a different location.
Pete, Native host manifest location is well documented by Mozilla [1] and "lib" is arch-independent. It should be properly placed to /usr/share (and this location was documented early), but this is not work now - there is a bug in Mozilla's bugtracker [2]. > Right now upstream install scripts put the mozilla files in /usr/lib64 Those files are placed to platform provide libdir because of Mozilla's bug 1318461. I will change location to /usr/share as soon as this bug will be resolved. If distro rules allow to use "lib" as platform independent directory - I recommend to use it. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Native_messaging#Linux [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1318461
(In reply to Yuri Konotopov from comment #38) > Pete, > > Native host manifest location is well documented by Mozilla [1] and "lib" is > arch-independent. It should be properly placed to /usr/share (and this > location was documented early), but this is not work now - there is a bug in > Mozilla's bugtracker [2]. > > > Right now upstream install scripts put the mozilla files in /usr/lib64 > > Those files are placed to platform provide libdir because of Mozilla's bug > 1318461. I will change location to /usr/share as soon as this bug will be > resolved. > If distro rules allow to use "lib" as platform independent directory - I > recommend to use it. > > [1] > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/ > Native_messaging#Linux > [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1318461 In my honest opinion, lib should be fine as an interim solution until this is resolved. (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #37) > Are there any blockers left I need to address? > > I'm happy to change it to noarch if that's the upstream guidance, but at the > same time I don't think there's anything wrong if it's archful either. Right > now upstream install scripts put the mozilla files in /usr/lib64 and I would > like to avoid adding downstream hacks to move this to a different location. I would think a noarch would be the "more correct" solution, as it's just for the interim, and isn't "%{_lib}" always /usr/lib for noarch builds? I maybe wrong, but both upstream should resolve it themselves and I would think this would be the lowest maintenance solution for you.
Guys, I'm sorry if this is already addressed. I've just noticed that `chrome-gnome-shell` package from `region51-chrome-gnome-shell` repo conflicts with `chrome-remote-desktop` package from `updates`. chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.noarch chrome-remote-desktop-56.0.2924.87-3.fc25.x86_64 With chrome-gnome-shell installed I'm getting the following: $ sudo dnf install chrome-remote-desktop-56.0.2924.87-3.fc25.x86_64 ... Error: Transaction check error: file /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts from install of chrome-remote-desktop-56.0.2924.87-3.fc25.x86_64 conflicts with file from package chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.noarch
I assume this is because of the double owned dir? @Pete I guess this would be another blocking issue too.
Not sure what to do with the transaction check error. In chrome-remote-desktop /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts is a symlink to ../../chromium/native-messaging-hosts which of course breaks this package here that expects it to be a directory. I would say it's an issue in chrome-remote-desktop that shouldn't be replacing a valid directory with a symlink. Jeremy, what is the other blocking issue you are talking about?
Hello, Do you think the issues can be fixed to make it available in the repo. It's a fairly important package now that firefox isn't compatible anymore with the old plugin :) Thanks !
I'm going to be "that guy" ;) and ask what's happening on this? GNOME extension management on Fedora has been broken for quite a while now.
@Stephen, FYI, it still works in Epiphany (or "Web"), the GNOME web browser. `sudo dnf install epiphany`.
This review is stalled and a response is needed soon, as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Reviewer_not_responding Is there anything left to address, Jeremy?
Pete, I went through the review checklist and also checked the earlier unofficial reviews done here and the package seems almost ready. Can you file a ticket for the chrome-remote-desktop symlink issue and I'll then approve this review?
Thanks Chris! I've filed a chromium ticket for the directory symlink issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463967
Approving the review. Please also update the package to the latest upstream version when importing (currently at version 9 upstream).
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/chrome-gnome-shell
chrome-gnome-shell-9-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3168b42a6c
Can this be branched for epel7 also. I have tested it and the same spec file actually works as is for epel. (Checked on centos 7). Would be nice to get the package rather than having to do it myself.
chrome-gnome-shell-9-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3168b42a6c
chrome-gnome-shell-9-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.