Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10452126-gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/thebeanogamer/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/g/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant-54-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: An extension which adds a Windows-like snap assist to GNOME. Fedora Account System Username: thebeanogamer Spec file is lightly adapted from gnome-shell-extension-gamerzilla and gnome-shell-extension-forge so hopefully nothing too noteworthy in there.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10452582 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476900-gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10452582-gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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 spec URL is a 404 so I can't run fedora-review on this bug, but the SRPM URL does work and I downloaded that to take a look. Here are some first pass improvements. ================================================================================ GNOME extension schema files shouldn't be compiled in the spec file, but rather by glib2's file triggers. ❯ rpm -q glib2 --filetriggers | grep -1 glib-compile-schemas transfiletriggerin scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas glib-compile-schemas /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : transfiletriggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas glib-compile-schemas /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : Installing the XML schema file in /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas like you already are will result in it getting compiled into /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas/gschemas.compiled during installation. This also avoids the need for a direct build requirement on glib2. -BuildRequires: glib2 -glib-compile-schemas tiling-assistant@leleat-on-github/schemas ================================================================================ The minimum GNOME shell version specified in metadata.json is 48, so ideally that can be enforced in the spec file as well. -Requires: gnome-shell +Requires: gnome-shell >= 48 Setting an upper limit is also possible, but I don't recommend that. I explained why in a recent pull request to the packaging guidelines if you're curious. https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/guidelines/pulls/1425#issuecomment-626582 This isn't currently a requirement of the guidelines, so consider it optional. ================================================================================ Fedora Workstation out of the box doesn't have a graphical method for enabling extensions. A good way to handle this is by recommending the extensions app. This one is also optional. +Recommends: gnome-extensions-app ================================================================================ Upstream has a changelog file, which ideally should be included as a doc file. This one is also optional. +%doc CHANGELOG.md ================================================================================ There is a missed spot where you can use the uuid macro, which I think improves the readability. This one is also optional. - msgfmt -c "$FILE" -o "locale/$LANG/LC_MESSAGES/tiling-assistant" + msgfmt -c "$FILE" -o "locale/$LANG/LC_MESSAGES/%{uuid}.mo"
Hey Carl, Thanks for giving this a review. I've never come across filetriggers in rpm before, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. I think I've made all the updates you've suggested: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/srpm-builds/10669958/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/srpm-builds/10669958/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant-54-1.src.rpm Have you got any reviews in the queue you'd like me to take a look at?
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10669968 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476900-gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10669968-gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
Sorry, this fell off my radar for a bit and the Copr URLs are 404 again. Could I bother you for one more build so I can run fedora-review against this? I don't have any pending reviews at the moment, but thanks for the offer to review swap.
Rebuilt in COPR Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/srpm-builds/10838474/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/srpm-builds/10838474/gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant-54-1.src.rpm Thanks!
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10838768 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476900-gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10838768-gnome-shell-extension-tiling-assistant/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
Thanks. The fedora-review output looks good, package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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]: 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 17768 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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 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 (see attachments). [x]: 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 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.