Bug 2039855 - Review Request: gnome-bluetooth3.34 - Bluetooth graphical utilities
Summary: Review Request: gnome-bluetooth3.34 - Bluetooth graphical utilities
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Adam Williamson
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-01-12 14:47 UTC by David King
Modified: 2022-02-16 16:21 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: gnome-bluetooth3.34-3.34.5-1.fc37 gnome-bluetooth3.34-3.34.5-1.fc36
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-02-16 16:21:35 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
awilliam: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description David King 2022-01-12 14:47:28 UTC
Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/gnome-bluetooth3.spec
SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/gnome-bluetooth3-42~alpha-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description: The gnome-bluetooth3 package contains graphical utilities to setup, monitor and use Bluetooth devices.
Fedora Account System Username: amigadave

Comment 1 David King 2022-01-12 14:48:04 UTC
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81147096

Comment 4 David King 2022-02-16 00:27:43 UTC
Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/gnome-bluetooth3.34.spec
SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/gnome-bluetooth3.34-3.34.5-1.fc37.src.rpm
Description: The gnome-bluetooth3.34 package contains graphical utilities to setup, monitor and use Bluetooth devices using the old 3.34 gnome-bluetooth API.
Fedora Account System Username: amigadave

Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2022-02-16 01:23:26 UTC
> Epoch:		1


Can we drop the Epoch? This has a new name...

Comment 6 Adam Williamson 2022-02-16 01:38:45 UTC
I'm reviewing this one.

Comment 7 David King 2022-02-16 01:51:36 UTC
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
> > Epoch:		1
> 
> 
> Can we drop the Epoch? This has a new name...

Now gone, thanks.

Comment 8 Adam Williamson 2022-02-16 02:08:15 UTC
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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: /usr/lib/udev/rules.d is owned by systemd-udev, not sure if this is technically in the dep chain but it's probably not a practical concern
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
     Note: there's a use of /usr/lib where possibly %{_prefix}/lib would be better, but it's not critical
[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.
[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.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: see above re /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
[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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: 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.
[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.
     Note: I confirmed a Koji scratch build worked instead.
[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 output:

[adamw@xps13k review]$ rpmlint gnome-bluetooth3.34.spec 
=================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

gnome-bluetooth3.34.spec:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides dbus-bluez-pin-helper
==================================================== 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ===================================================
[adamw@xps13k review]$ rpmlint *.rpm
=================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 4

gnome-bluetooth3.34.spec:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides dbus-bluez-pin-helper
gnome-bluetooth3.34.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gnome-bluetooth3.34.x86_64: E: no-binary
gnome-bluetooth3.34-libs.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/status/bluetooth-active.png /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/status/bluetooth-active.png
==================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 9.6 s ===================================================

The dbus-bluez-pin-helper provide can just be removed, I think, it's not necessary AFAICS (nothing requires, recommends or suggests it). The other warnings/errors can be ignored, it's OK for us not to have binaries in this package and for the icons to be duplicates.

Package is APPROVED, minor notes above can be addressed but I think don't need to hold up review.

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-02-16 14:33:44 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-bluetooth3.34

Comment 10 David King 2022-02-16 16:21:35 UTC
Built for rawhide and f36. Thanks!


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