Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail-0.71-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail relies on the Bubblemail service to display notifications in GNOME shell about new and unread messages in local (mbox, Maildir) and remote (POP3, IMAP) mailboxes. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43597304
The upstream versioning stream definitely looks broken, they assume that 0.61 < 0.7. Maybe this should be changed downstream to 0.6.1? Of course, proper upstream versioning would be ideal.
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > The upstream versioning stream definitely looks broken I meant upstream versioning *scheme* of course.
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > The upstream versioning stream definitely looks broken, they assume that > 0.61 < 0.7. > > Maybe this should be changed downstream to 0.6.1? Of course, proper upstream > versioning would be ideal. I know, so far normal releases have been numbered 0.x, development releases 0.x9 and bugfix releases 0.x1. I told them to switch to semantic versioning or something that makes sense starting with the 1.0 release.
So how are you going to make sure that the versioning is correct downstream before this is fixed upstream?
Well, the only packaged version is the one I am submitting now and hopefully the next one will be a 1.x release. Upstream has been very cooperative and we've spent the past weeks debugging Bubblemail together, so I'm fairly confident they will revise the versioning scheme. Should they get carried away and publish e.g. a 0.8 release, I will have to resort to an Epoch directive, or wait for the revision.
Sounds good, package approved! 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/thofmann/fedora/reviews/review-gnome-shell-extension- bubblemail/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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 %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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail-0.71-1.fc33.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail-0.71-1.fc33.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mbox -> box, m box gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mbox -> box, m box 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mbox -> box, m box gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://bubblemail.free.fr/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://framagit.org/razer/bubblemail-gnome-shell/-/archive/v0.71/bubblemail-gnome-shell-v0.71.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5637575307eff9f6c7817d977bb30fd89e7007454452e6c53bda36925f61759c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5637575307eff9f6c7817d977bb30fd89e7007454452e6c53bda36925f61759c Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bubblemail gnome-shell Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, R, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Python, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you very much Till!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail
FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0
FEDORA-2020-98a1412639 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-98a1412639
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #5) > Well, the only packaged version is the one I am submitting now and hopefully > the next one will be a 1.x release. Upstream has been very cooperative and > we've spent the past weeks debugging Bubblemail together, so I'm fairly > confident they will revise the versioning scheme. Should they get carried > away and publish e.g. a 0.8 release, I will have to resort to an Epoch > directive, or wait for the revision. One more comment on this: Please try to avoid Epochs to fix the versioning. Epochs should only be used as a last ressort. Instead, you could just fix the versioning downstream (e.g., 0.8.1 instead of 0.81) should it ever become necessary.
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #11) > > One more comment on this: Please try to avoid Epochs to fix the versioning. > Epochs should only be used as a last ressort. > Instead, you could just fix the versioning downstream (e.g., 0.8.1 instead > of 0.81) should it ever become necessary. I'm well aware, the wording in the guidelines has conditioned me to dread epochs. I was prepared to resort to some hackery with the numbers, but upstream said that they will indeed switch to semantic versioning for both bubblemail and the extension.
FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-98a1412639 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-98a1412639 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-98a1412639 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-98a1412639 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.