Bug 499282 - Review Request: xfce4-notifyd - Simple notification daemon for Xfce
Summary: Review Request: xfce4-notifyd - Simple notification daemon for Xfce
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Susi Lehtola
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-05-05 22:48 UTC by Christoph Wickert
Modified: 2014-09-21 21:51 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 0.1.0-2.fc11
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-05-21 23:28:31 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
susi.lehtola: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christoph Wickert 2009-05-05 22:48:33 UTC
Spec URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/xfce4-notifyd.spec
SRPM URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/xfce4-notifyd-0.1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: Xfce4-notifyd is a simple, visually-appealing notification daemon for Xfce that implements the freedesktop.org desktop notifications specification. Features:
* Themable using the GTK+ theming mechanism
* Visually appealing: rounded corners, shaped windows
* Supports transparency and fade effects

Comment 1 Susi Lehtola 2009-05-06 08:13:44 UTC
rpmlint output:
xfce4-notifyd.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides desktop-notification-daemon
xfce4-notifyd.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided notification-daemon-xfce
xfce4-notifyd.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/xfce4-notifyd-config
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

- First and last are not a problem, second one maybe should be provided? Up to you.


MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

The package has been

APPROVED

Comment 2 Christoph Wickert 2009-05-06 13:23:54 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> - First and last are not a problem, second one maybe should be provided? Up to
> you.

I don't think I should, notification-daemon-xfce was never in Fedora or packaged at all. Nothing will require it, the Obsoletes: is just for smother upgrading.


New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xfce4-notifyd
Short Description: Simple notification daemon for Xfce
Owners: cwickert
Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11
InitialCC:

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2009-05-06 21:18:15 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2009-05-09 13:07:45 UTC
xfce4-notifyd-0.1.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfce4-notifyd-0.1.0-1.fc11

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2009-05-12 03:55:34 UTC
xfce4-notifyd-0.1.0-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 xfce4-notifyd'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-4698

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2009-05-15 23:28:55 UTC
xfce4-notifyd-0.1.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 xfce4-notifyd'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-4698

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2009-05-21 23:28:27 UTC
xfce4-notifyd-0.1.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 8 Mukundan Ragavan 2014-09-21 21:38:23 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: xfce4-notifyd
New Branches: epel7
Owners: cwickert
InitialCC: nonamedotc

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-21 21:51:56 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).


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