Bug 2231748 - Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla - A gnome-shell extension to connect to gamerzilla
Summary: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla - A gnome-shell extension to...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/dulsi/gamerzilla-s...
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-08-13 22:12 UTC by Dennis Payne
Modified: 2023-08-15 15:18 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-08-15 14:57:40 UTC
Type: ---
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dennis Payne 2023-08-13 22:12:22 UTC
Spec URL: https://github.com/dulsi/gamerzilla-shell-extension/raw/main/gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla.spec
SRPM URL: https://identicalsoftware.com/gamerzilla/gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla-0.1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Gamerzilla shell extension configures your gamerzilla connection
information and uploads achievements online.

Fedora Account System Username: dulsi

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-13 23:37:16 UTC
Copr build:

Review template:

Please take a look if any issues were found.

This comment was created by the fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2023-08-15 08:21:51 UTC
 - Use SPDX please:

License:        GPL-2.0-or-later

Package Review

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

- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
  Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using
  the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for
  converting it to SPDX.
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU
     General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla-0.1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
================================================================ rpmlint session starts ===============================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn0y5vt3u')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla.noarch: W: no-documentation
================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ================================

Package approved BUT you need to fix the License field to be SPDX.

After import, please:
 - add the package to Koschei
 - add the package to release-monitoring.org

Comment 3 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-08-15 14:22:07 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2023-08-15 14:56:38 UTC
FEDORA-2023-658dbe2673 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-658dbe2673

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2023-08-15 14:57:40 UTC
FEDORA-2023-658dbe2673 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-08-15 15:16:40 UTC
FEDORA-2023-1a6b5c95c9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1a6b5c95c9

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2023-08-15 15:18:37 UTC
FEDORA-2023-1a6b5c95c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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.