Tested on fedora rawhide docker image.

Updated runtime dependency in spec from 'zeitgeist' to 'python3-zeitgeist' now that https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913779 is resolved.

 - Don't use the archive from Debian, grab it from upstream repo:

Source0:        https://gitlab.gnome.org/crvi/%{name}/-/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2

 - Please document why the patch are needed.

 - Not needed:

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

 - Globbing the entire %{python3_sitelib}/ is forbidden, please be more specific.

%{python3_sitelib}/gnome_activity_journal-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info

 - In general be more specific in the %files section:

%files -f %{name}.lang
%license COPYING
%doc AUTHORS NEWS
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/org.gnome.ActivityJournal.*
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/status/*.png
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/*
%{_datadir}/applications/org.gnome.ActivityJournal.desktop
%{_datadir}/man/man1/%{name}.1*
%{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/*
%{python3_sitelib}/gnome_activity_journal-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info
%{_datadir}/zeitgeist/_zeitgeist/engine/extensions/gnome_activity_journal.*

 - Valid shorthand for CC BY-SA 3.0 is CC-BY-SA:

License:        GPLv3+ and CC-BY-SA




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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-activity-journal
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== 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", "Creative Commons Attribution-
     ShareAlike Public License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public
     License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License
     v3.0 or later". 78 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-activity-
     journal/review-gnome-activity-journal/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps(vim-X11, qmmp, redeclipse, xchm,
     pdfmod, kgraphviewer, qucs, keepassx, libgda-tools, lammps-data,
     fedora-logos, sxiv, klatexformula, eom, mono-tools, hicolor-icon-
     theme, wesnoth-data, yokadi, vacuum-im),
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps(mono-tools, keepassx, libgda-
     tools, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, pdfmod, eom, vacuum-im),
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/status(hicolor-icon-theme),
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps(qucs, mono-tools, keepassx,
     libgda-tools, alsa-tools, qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos,
     wesnoth-data, pdfmod), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps(vim-X11,
     qmmp, redeclipse, xchm, pdfmod, kgraphviewer, qucs, keepassx, libgda-
     tools, lammps-data, fedora-logos, sxiv, klatexformula, eom, mono-
     tools, hicolor-icon-theme, wesnoth-data, yokadi, freedroidrpg, vacuum-
     im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps(vim-X11, qmmp, redeclipse,
     xchm, alsa-tools, nedit, qucs, keepassx, libgda-tools, lxqt-config,
     lammps-data, fedora-logos, sxiv, mono-tools, hicolor-icon-theme,
     yokadi, tuxanci, freedroidrpg, vacuum-im),
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(dxf2gcode, qucs, eom,
     wdisplays, keepassx, qtl866, qmmp, massif-visualizer, hicolor-icon-
     theme, fedora-logos, tuxanci, pdfmod, klatexformula, swappy,
     freedroidrpg, autokey-common)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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.
[-]: 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 20480 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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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-activity-journal-1.0.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          gnome-activity-journal-1.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
gnome-activity-journal.noarch: W: invalid-license CC BY-SA 3.0
gnome-activity-journal.src: W: invalid-license CC BY-SA 3.0
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the review.

Is there a script which I can use to verify the spec file modifications ?

(In reply to crvi from comment #4)
> Hi Robert,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Is there a script which I can use to verify the spec file modifications ?

Like above? It's fedora-review (sudo dnf install fedora-review)

You can use it like this:

Assuming you have spec in a directory and you generated the SRPM (spectool -g *.spec && fedpkg --release f35 srpm), you then run:

$ fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n packagename

It will build the package in a mock chroot and test the resulting packages (it can take a while). The review.txt file will be in the review-packagename subdirectory. Also you can check the logs in the  review-packagename/results subdirectory.

Side note: to use mock, your user must need to be in the 'mock' group: sudo usermod -a -G mock myusername

You can also test a mockbuild (locally on a chroot) first:
fedpkg --release f35  mockbuild --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Or a scratch-build (in Koji for testing if it builds on all arches correctly):
fedpkg  --release f35 scratch-build --srpm --fail-fast
(you need to identify yourself with Kerberos first , not sure if it works with people not in the packager group: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerberos#How_to_use_kerberos_auth_with_Fedora_Infrastructure)

Hi Robert,

All review comments are addressed.

1. The 'fedora-review' command reported the following, which is expected.
 
Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-activity-journal
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

2. I have removed 'libappindicator-gtk3' and 'librsvg2' from `Requires:` as rpmlint reported 'explicit-lib-dependency' errors. 

https://gitlab.gnome.org/crvi/gnome-activity-journal/-/commit/eda7d772b0a5d92ebdc2998303588aa97791b3d2

Thanks!

Created attachment 1764636 [details]
Fedora review report

(In reply to crvi from comment #6)
> 
> 2. I have removed 'libappindicator-gtk3' and 'librsvg2' from `Requires:` as
> rpmlint reported 'explicit-lib-dependency' errors. 
> 
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/crvi/gnome-activity-journal/-/commit/
> eda7d772b0a5d92ebdc2998303588aa97791b3d2
> 
> Thanks!

Please revert this, as this is just a Python script, the lib dependencies won't be autodetected like a C program linked to them.

Completed. Thanks!

The package is approved, but you still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

Sponsored.

FEDORA-2021-6e0b788f08 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6e0b788f08

FEDORA-2021-6e0b788f08 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6e0b788f08 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6e0b788f08

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

FEDORA-2021-6e0b788f08 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.