Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/KyleGospo/bazaar-package/refs/heads/main/bazaar.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09497316-bazaar/bazaar-0.4.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: A new app store for GNOME with a focus on discovering and installing applications and add-ons from Flatpak remotes, particularly Flathub. It emphasizes supporting the developers who make the Linux desktop possible. Fedora Account System Username: kylegospo
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9497323 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391313-bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09497323-bazaar/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bazaar Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Systemd user unit service file(s) in bazaar Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
Regarding the existing bazaar package, this appears to be long abandoned. If replacing it with this one is not an option, I am happy to rename this to something like bazaar-store.
Taking this review.
Initial spec review: > Name: bazaar I would prefer this package to be named "bazaar-store" simply to avoid confusion with the Bazaar VCS. This is not a firm requirement, but it also simplifies things if you're not reusing an existing package name (no unretirement process required). > Summary: A flatpak centered app store The summary can be tightened up a bit to follow rpmlint guidelines: "Flatpak-centric software center and app store" > Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz The SourceURL should be reformulated as "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/bazaar-%{version}.tar.gz" Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags > # https://github.com/kolunmi/bazaar/pull/275 > Patch: 275.patch This should be restructured to use a URL for the Patch line, and the comment should explain what the patch is for > Requires: glycin-libs > Requires: libadwaita > Requires: libsoup3 > Requires: json-glib What are these for? It looks like RPM already generates the required dependencies, so these should be dropped. > %description > A new app store for GNOME with a focus on discovering and installing applications and add-ons from Flatpak remotes, particularly Flathub. > It emphasizes supporting the developers who make the Linux desktop possible. > Bazaar features a "curated" tab that can be configured by distributors to allow for a more locallized experience. This needs to be wrapped to 79 columns. > %build > %meson > %meson_build The "%meson" call should be split into the "%conf" section unless you plan to ship it in EPEL < 10. See this as an example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/waynergy/blob/rawhide/f/waynergy.spec > %changelog > * Wed Aug 27 2025 Kyle Gospodnetich <me> > - Init package Changelog format is not quite right and needs version-release mentioned somewhere. Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/manual-changelog/
Also, if you have only a single Source, you can use "Source" instead of "Source0". (Technically current versions of RPM allow numberless Source and Patch lines, but it gets confusing when interacting with them in the spec if you don't know about auto-numbering.)
Thanks for the review! Here's the new bazaar-store package with the requested changes. I've also updated bazaar to the latest tagged release - 0.4.8. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09536745-bazaar-store/bazaar-store.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09536745-bazaar-store/bazaar-store-0.4.8-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9536781 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391313-bazaar-store/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09536781-bazaar-store/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Systemd user unit service file(s) in bazaar-store Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
This needs "BuildRequires: gcc" per the information found above. The other issue looks like a false negative.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09543587-bazaar-store/bazaar-store.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09543587-bazaar-store/bazaar-store-0.4.8-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2106271 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9536781 to 9543648
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9543648 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391313-bazaar-store/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09543648-bazaar-store/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd user unit service file(s) in bazaar-store Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
The packaging is missing a check for desktop file validatity. This means adding "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" and adding a %check section after %install section like so: %check desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{appid}.desktop Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09638099-bazaar-store/bazaar-store.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09638099-bazaar-store/bazaar-store-0.5.2-1.fc44.src.rpm
Forgot to update the changelog, tiny fix: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09638140-bazaar-store/bazaar-store.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kylegospo/bazaar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09638140-bazaar-store/bazaar-store-0.5.2-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9638133 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391313-bazaar-store/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09638133-bazaar-store/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd user unit service file(s) in bazaar-store Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
Created attachment 2108283 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9638133 to 9638147
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9638147 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391313-bazaar-store/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09638147-bazaar-store/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd user unit service file(s) in bazaar-store Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/dbus-1, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps, /usr/share/gnome-shell, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, > /usr/share/gnome-shell/search-providers, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic This looks like some stuff needs work here. The icons paths indicate we need "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". The dbus paths indicate we need "Requires: dbus-common". The gnome-shell providers stuff needs to be subpackaged out so that it can have a proper dependency for gnome-shell (as I assume you want to use this on non-GNOME environments too). Those bits should be subpackaged into "gnome-shell-search-bazaar-store" noarch subpackage that "Requires: gnome-shell" and has "Supplements: (gnome-shell and bazaar-store)".