Bug 1819072 - Review Request: gnome-extensions-app - gnome-shell extensions management
Summary: Review Request: gnome-extensions-app - gnome-shell extensions management
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kalev Lember
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-03-31 07:11 UTC by Florian Müllner
Modified: 2020-03-31 21:00 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-03-31 21:00:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
klember: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Florian Müllner 2020-03-31 07:11:02 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~fmuellner/gnome-extensions-app.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~fmuellner/gnome-extensions-app-3.36.1-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: GNOME Extensions is an application for configuring and removing
GNOME Shell extensions.
Fedora Account System Username: fmuellner

The history here is a bit weird:
 - gnome-shell-extensions-prefs has been part of the gnome-shell package for ages, but wasn't user-visible until 3.36.0
 - in 3.36.0, it was still build as part of gnome-shell, but put into a subpackage
 - for 3.36.1, we (Kalev and I) decided that a separate package would be preferable, as it makes building a Fedora flatpak easier

Comment 1 Kalev Lember 2020-03-31 09:07:26 UTC
Packaging looks nice and clean. Some notes:

$ rpmlint gnome-extensions-app-3.36.1-1.fc32.src.rpm \
          gnome-extensions-app-3.36.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm

gnome-extensions-app.src:20: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 20, tab: line 4)
gnome-extensions-app.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gnome-extensions-app.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-shell-extension-prefs
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Can you fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning from above?

> License:	GPLv3+

Is GPLv3+ correct? README and COPYING seem to indicate it's GPL version 2.

Can you add appdata validation as per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage ?

Comment 2 Florian Müllner 2020-03-31 16:25:35 UTC
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #1)
> Packaging looks nice and clean. Some notes:
> 
> $ rpmlint gnome-extensions-app-3.36.1-1.fc32.src.rpm \
>           gnome-extensions-app-3.36.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm

Meh, I should have thought of running that myself.


> gnome-extensions-app.src:20: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line
> 20, tab: line 4)

Fixed.

> gnome-extensions-app.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gnome-extensions-app.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> gnome-shell-extension-prefs

Any chance to shut those up? I'm not going to waste time adding a man page for a graphical application ...

(I know you didn't ask me to fix those, just curious)


> > License:	GPLv3+
> 
> Is GPLv3+ correct? README and COPYING seem to indicate it's GPL version 2.

Yikes, good catch. gnome-extensions-tool is GPL3, and that's the spec I copied because I had figured out the building-from-subproject stuff.

Fixed.


> Can you add appdata validation as per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
> #_app_data_validate_usage ?

Done.

I guess an alternative would be to run %meson_check (which performs that check if appstream-util is available)?

Comment 3 Kalev Lember 2020-03-31 17:38:14 UTC
(In reply to Florian Müllner from comment #2)
> (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #1)
> > gnome-extensions-app.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> > gnome-extensions-app.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
> > gnome-shell-extension-prefs
> 
> Any chance to shut those up? I'm not going to waste time adding a man page
> for a graphical application ...
> 
> (I know you didn't ask me to fix those, just curious)

There's $pkgname.rpmlintrc these days but I've never tried to use it myself. It's probably a good idea to set this up in order to filter out false positives from the automatic rpmlint tests that show up in bodhi.


> I guess an alternative would be to run %meson_check (which performs that
> check if appstream-util is available)?

Sure, that makes sense to me.


Everything looks good to me now! Thanks.

APPROVED

Comment 4 Florian Müllner 2020-03-31 18:41:42 UTC
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #3)
> (In reply to Florian Müllner from comment #2)
> > I guess an alternative would be to run %meson_check (which performs that
> > check if appstream-util is available)?
> 
> Sure, that makes sense to me.

OK, I'll change that.

(not that it matter, as that's the only check meson_check does right now)

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-03-31 20:43:57 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-extensions-app


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.