Bug 1837019 - Review Request: theme-switcher - Switch dark/light GTK theme automatically during day/night
Summary: Review Request: theme-switcher - Switch dark/light GTK theme automatically du...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Vasiliy Glazov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-05-18 17:04 UTC by Artem
Modified: 2020-07-08 01:05 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-06-30 01:39:50 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
vascom2: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Artem 2020-05-18 17:04:42 UTC
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//theme-switcher.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//theme-switcher-2.0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
A global automated switcher for dark/light GTK theme during day/night and more.

Theme-switcher automatically can switch your:

- GTK theme
- GNOME Terminal profiles
- Wallpapers
- More will come...

To read docs run:

  xdg-open /usr/share/doc/theme-switcher/README.md

Comment 1 Artem 2020-05-18 17:04:45 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44657460

Comment 2 Lyes Saadi 2020-05-23 20:43:34 UTC
Hello Artem :)!

systemd seems to be a requirement since the package uses systemd as a timer and adds files into %{_userunitdir}.

Also, the systemd user scriptlets are missing https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units.

Comment 3 Artem 2020-05-24 16:33:33 UTC
Hello! Thanks! Added both, %{?systemd_requires} and systemd scriplets. They was already before but i removed them due some weird behavior and unit was always activated, but this was before 2.0 version, seems fine now. We will drop entirely systemd units in future probably.

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/theme-switcher/fedora-32-x86_64/01405681-theme-switcher/theme-switcher.spec
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/theme-switcher/fedora-32-x86_64/01405681-theme-switcher/theme-switcher-2.0.4-2.fc32.src.rpm

Comment 4 Lyes Saadi 2020-06-02 22:57:02 UTC
Hello! Sorry for the late answer, had computer problems :P.

So, shouldn't this:
%systemd_user_post %{name}.service

Be this instead?
%systemd_user_post %{name}-auto.service

Comment 5 Fabio Valentini 2020-06-04 12:35:07 UTC
(In reply to Artem from comment #3)
> Hello! Thanks! Added both, %{?systemd_requires} and systemd scriplets. They
> was already before but i removed them due some weird behavior and unit was
> always activated, but this was before 2.0 version, seems fine now. We will
> drop entirely systemd units in future probably.

Maybe the "fixed" systemd user unit behavior is caused by this fedora 32 Change?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Systemd_presets_for_user_units

Comment 6 Lyes Saadi 2020-06-04 13:13:49 UTC
So something like this should be done to avoid reproducing the behaviour with Fedora 31?

%if 0%{?fedora} >= 32

%post
%systemd_user_post %{name}-auto.service

%preun
%systemd_user_preun %{name}-auto.service

%endif

Comment 7 Fabio Valentini 2020-06-04 13:23:47 UTC
If you want to include this on fedora 31 as well, I think skipping those scriptlets would be a workaround, yes.
An alternative would be to include a custom user unit preset file to disable the service by default, but that's more complicated.

Comment 8 Artem 2020-06-04 18:49:30 UTC
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5)
> (In reply to Artem from comment #3)
> > Hello! Thanks! Added both, %{?systemd_requires} and systemd scriplets. They
> > was already before but i removed them due some weird behavior and unit was
> > always activated, but this was before 2.0 version, seems fine now. We will
> > drop entirely systemd units in future probably.
> 
> Maybe the "fixed" systemd user unit behavior is caused by this fedora 32
> Change?
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Systemd_presets_for_user_units

Exactly this. Now i understand from where was problem comes. Thanks a lot Fabio and thanks a lot Lyes. Sorry for some delay here, i'll update SPEC tomorrow and try to test all this.

Comment 9 Artem 2020-06-05 20:14:27 UTC
Custom user unit will be better for sure, i even remembered i wanted to add it long time ago, but need some time for this. Hope it's OK for now to make conditional for F31:

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/theme-switcher/fedora-32-x86_64/01427789-theme-switcher/theme-switcher.spec

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/theme-switcher/fedora-32-x86_64/01427789-theme-switcher/theme-switcher-2.0.4-3.fc32.src.rpm

I'll try to ask few people for testing this, but they are on F32 already.

Comment 11 Vasiliy Glazov 2020-06-29 05:27:45 UTC
Approved.

And check rpmlint errors please.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
  for Systemd user units service files.
  Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in theme-switcher
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units


===== 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", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)". 40
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/vascom/1837019-theme-switcher/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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.
[x]: 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: 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]: 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]: 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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.
[x]: %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: theme-switcher-2.0.4-4.fc33.noarch.rpm
          theme-switcher-2.0.4-4.fc33.src.rpm
theme-switcher.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdg -> bldg
theme-switcher.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US md -> MD, Md, ms
theme-switcher.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/theme-switcher/themeswitcher/main.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
theme-switcher.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary theme-switcher-auto.py
theme-switcher.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary theme-switcher-gui
theme-switcher.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary theme-switcher-manual.py
theme-switcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdg -> bldg
theme-switcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user
theme-switcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US md -> MD, Md, ms
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
theme-switcher.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdg -> bldg
theme-switcher.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US md -> MD, Md, ms
theme-switcher.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Latesil/theme-switcher <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
theme-switcher.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/theme-switcher/themeswitcher/main.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
theme-switcher.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary theme-switcher-auto.py
theme-switcher.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary theme-switcher-gui
theme-switcher.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary theme-switcher-manual.py
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Latesil/theme-switcher/archive/2.0.4/theme-switcher-2.0.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 966ee18c9e18587f8dcb7b2165c22b03d1e319d5a486f16b3c9423fd1546cf33
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 966ee18c9e18587f8dcb7b2165c22b03d1e319d5a486f16b3c9423fd1546cf33


Requires
--------
theme-switcher (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python3
    gtk3
    hicolor-icon-theme
    python(abi)
    python3-gobject
    systemd



Provides
--------
theme-switcher:
    application()
    application(com.github.Latesil.theme-switcher-gui.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(com.github.Latesil.theme-switcher.appdata.xml)
    theme-switcher



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1837019
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-06-29 14:04:47 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/theme-switcher

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2020-06-29 15:29:14 UTC
FEDORA-2020-55d39947df has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-55d39947df

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2020-06-29 15:35:42 UTC
FEDORA-2020-6cb66aac02 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6cb66aac02

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2020-06-30 00:55:18 UTC
FEDORA-2020-6cb66aac02 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-2020-6cb66aac02 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6cb66aac02

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2020-06-30 01:39:50 UTC
FEDORA-2020-55d39947df has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2020-07-08 01:05:51 UTC
FEDORA-2020-6cb66aac02 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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