Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate-1.5.6-1.tillf8.src.rpm Description: Gpscorrelate adds coordinates to the exif data of jpeg pictures based on a gpx track file. The correlation is done by comparing the timestamp of the images with the timestamp of the gps coordinates.
Package has a GUI application. A desktop file should be provided. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
(In reply to comment #1) > Package has a GUI application. A desktop file should be provided. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files Uh, thanks. I meant to add it before I submitted the review. Here it is: Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate-1.5.6-2.tillf8.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2) > Uh, thanks. I meant to add it before I submitted the review. Here it is: I recommend not use a vendor in desktop-file-install. You really must provide an icon: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files And therefore you need to add hicolor-icon-theme to Requires.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Uh, thanks. I meant to add it before I submitted the review. Here it is: > > I recommend not use a vendor in desktop-file-install. The current guidelines still demand a vendor, but I agree that it seems to be better to not use it. > You really must provide an icon: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files > > And therefore you need to add hicolor-icon-theme to Requires. I do not see there, that I have to provide an icon, there is only described how the icon should be specified in the desktop file. The Desktop Entry Specification that is linked there also says, that an icon is not required.
(In reply to comment #4) > The current guidelines still demand a vendor, but I agree that it seems to be > better to not use it. Guidelines say that using this form is acceptable: desktop-file-install --vendor="" \ [...] As you noted it is a suggestion :) > I do not see there, that I have to provide an icon, there is only described how > the icon should be specified in the desktop file. The Desktop Entry > Specification that is linked there also says, that an icon is not required. I think that this will be the first GUI package in Fedora not to use an icon... not a nice thing to see. You can ask to the Art Team for one. I just noticed that you missed the use of the %{name} macro here: Source0: http://freefoote.dview.net/linux/gpscorrelate-%{version}.tar.gz The Debian package has a man page. You might want to include it.
Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate-1.5.7-2.tillf8.src.rpm Here is an update. I still do not have an icon, but I asked upstream about it and will ask the art project, if he does not have one. This package now contains an extended version of the debian manpage and some new patches, to reduce the amount of compiler warnings and to include the manpage and desktop file intallation in the makefile.
The patches were accepted by upstream and here is my request for a logo from the Fedora Artwork team: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService#GPScorrelate_application Not using %{name} in Source0 is kind of intentional, because I do not see any added value to use it and afaik it is not required by the source URL guidelines.
1.5.8 was released some months ago and I think that making a review for 1.5.7 makes no sense because with 1.5.8 all patches go away. What is about using 'redhat-starthere' or a similar icon as a temporary replacement till gpscorrelate have its own icon?
Update to 1.5.8: Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate-1.5.8-1.tillf8.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate.spec (In reply to comment #8) > What is about using 'redhat-starthere' or a similar icon as a temporary > replacement till gpscorrelate have its own icon? Why not, but is this a good choice? Afaics it is only provided by fedora-icon-theme, which probably is not allowed to be used on non official spins. But the logo itselfs looks nice.
Package Review ============== Package: Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: F10/i386 [x] Rpmlint output: Source RPM: [fab@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gpscorrelate-1.5.8-1.tillf8.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Binary RPM(s): [fab@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint gpscorrelate* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [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. License type: GPLv2+ [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Upstream source: 99e61153ac1245955e780298a6125130 Build source: 99e61153ac1245955e780298a6125130 [-] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales. [x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete. [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install. [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: F10/i386 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128230 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [x] Changelog in allowed format Is there a reason why RELEASES and README are not included in %doc? Beside the %doc stuff I see no further blocker, package APPROVED. The usage of 'redhat-starthere' is a bit problematic but I guess that if the icon is missing there is no icon showing up in menu. Let's wait for the icon from the ArtTeam.
(In reply to comment #10) > Is there a reason why RELEASES and README are not included in %doc? Beside the > %doc stuff I see no further blocker, package APPROVED. I agree that the file RELEASES should be included, but the file README only includes installation information, that do not help Fedora users. > The usage of 'redhat-starthere' is a bit problematic but I guess that if the > icon is missing there is no icon showing up in menu. Let's wait for the icon > from the ArtTeam. So should I just use the redhat-starthere icon in the .desktop but not add a dependency to fedora-icon-theme?
Created attachment 332991 [details] Possible icon for gpscorrelate
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Is there a reason why RELEASES and README are not included in %doc? Beside the > > %doc stuff I see no further blocker, package APPROVED. > > I agree that the file RELEASES should be included, but the file README only > includes installation information, that do not help Fedora users. Sorry, I missed that. > > The usage of 'redhat-starthere' is a bit problematic but I guess that if the > > icon is missing there is no icon showing up in menu. Let's wait for the icon > > from the ArtTeam. > > So should I just use the redhat-starthere icon in the .desktop but not add a > dependency to fedora-icon-theme? In Comment #12 is a self-made icon (based on stuff in /usr/share/pixmaps).
Sorry for the delay and thanks for the review. I now created a new logo in svg using cliparts from the Open Clip Art Library and it works here in Gnome. It now shows an image with an attached tag that shows coordinates. Please take a look if you want: SPEC: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate.spec SRPM: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate-1.6.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Icon: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gpscorrelate-gui.svg New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gpscorrelate Short Description: A GPS photo correlation / geotagging tool Owners: till Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
cvs done.
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc11
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc9
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc10
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update gpscorrelate'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-3793
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gpscorrelate'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3800
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gpscorrelate-1.6.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.