Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sugar-view-slides/blob/rawhide/f/sugar-view-slides.spec SRPM URL: https://chimosky.fedorapeople.org/sugar-view-slides-15-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: The View Slides activity is meant to allow the XO laptop to read view the contents of a Zip file containing images named sequentially. Project Gutenberg has a few books as raw scanned images, and this can be a useful format for picture books, comic books, magazine articles, photo essays, etc. Fedora Account System Username: chimosky The package was retired in F32 due to FTB but it currently builds but it's been dropped by rawhide.
Hello, I am not a packager yet, so this is an unofficial review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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/sugar-view-slides See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [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]: 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 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: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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: sugar-view-slides-15-1.fc36.noarch.rpm sugar-view-slides-15-1.fc36.src.rpm sugar-view-slides.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.ViewSlidesActivity.mo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/ViewSlides/ViewSlides-15.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8654c861a058ae1c81dd23e5022a09007dcda0bb95fb0072d84bd2e2b0b67732 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8654c861a058ae1c81dd23e5022a09007dcda0bb95fb0072d84bd2e2b0b67732 Requires -------- sugar-view-slides (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3-pygame sugar Provides -------- sugar-view-slides: sugar-view-slides Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n sugar-view-slides Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH --Robby
Thanks for the review and to address the issue you stated above, this review request isn't for a new package it's for the package to be added to rawhide as it was dropped because of a FTB so the request is for it to be added back to the rawhide repository.
Fixed spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sugar-view-slides/raw/rawhide/f/sugar-view-slides.spec
%build python3 setup.py build %install python3 setup.py install --prefix=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix} Why not %py3_build and %py3_install? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/#_example_python_spec_file rm %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/share/applications/*.desktop || true Why do you do this?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4) > %build > python3 setup.py build > > %install > python3 setup.py install --prefix=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix} > > > > Why not %py3_build and %py3_install? See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/ > #_example_python_spec_file I used %build and %install to maintain the convention used for the sugar packages, thanks for letting me know about %py3_build and %py3_install. I'll look at switching them. > > > > > rm %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/share/applications/*.desktop || true > > > Why do you do this? The desktop files create icons for running activities outside of sugar on other desktop environments and running an activity from it's icon was made to be just from the sugar desktop, that's why they're removed.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4) > %build > python3 setup.py build > > %install > python3 setup.py install --prefix=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix} > > > > Why not %py3_build and %py3_install? See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/ > #_example_python_spec_file Tried using both and it doesn't work for sugar activities as the extra arguments passed by %py3_build and %py3_install are not handled by the sugar-toolkit-gtk3 API so the build fails.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
@mhroncok Is there anything that's needed from me here? I've been waiting for this to be reviewed.
This is assigned to you. Package review requests should be assigned to whoever reviews them or to nobody. Assigning this to nobody makes sure this is listed as "looking for somebody to do the review". I've just assigned this to nobody now. The next step is to find somebody to review this. I asked some clarifying questions, but I won't be able to review this anytime soon, sorry. My involvement here was years ago.
Closing this as the package is no longer orphaned and has been updated.