Spec: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/tint2.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: tint2 is a simple panel/taskbar made for modern X window managers. It was specifically made for Openbox3 but should also work with other window managers (GNOME, KDE, etc...). It's based on ttm code http://code.google.com/p/ttm/. ________________________________________________________________________________ Koji builds from scratch (all successfully): dist F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2323245 dist F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2323250 dist-rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2323253 ________________________________________________________________________________ $ rpmlint SPECS/tint2.spec SPECS/tint2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://tint2.googlecode.com/files/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/i686/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.i686.rpm tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/tint2conf tint2.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/tint2 tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. ________________________________________________________________________________ Notes: * url Source0 is really valid * I'm not sure about license tag
*** Bug 515247 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
REVIEW: + OK ? ISSUE - NA + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. ? License ? License field in spec matches ? License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ md5sum tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 SOURCES/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 6fc5731e7425125fa84a2add5cef4bff tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 6fc5731e7425125fa84a2add5cef4bff SOURCES/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. + Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs ? Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version Issues: 1. License is unclear. You'd probably be better off contacting upstream to choose one of the two. 2.rpmlint output: [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/tint2.spec SRPMS/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. I wonder why it refers to tintwizard.py as a binary. Please check this? The rest looks good. Once these minor issues are cleared, you're good to go. Ankur
I haven't checked the functioning of the package btw.
(In reply to comment #2) Hello Ankur: First of all many thanks for the full review! :-) > Issues: > > 1. License is unclear. You'd probably be better off contacting upstream to > choose one of the two. Actually, tint2[1] and tintwizard[2] are different projects with different owners, although they are related, and this could be the reason that tint2 also ships tintwizard. Maybe I must package them separately? [1]http://code.google.com/p/tint2/ [2]http://code.google.com/p/tintwizard/ > 2.rpmlint output: > > [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/tint2.spec > SRPMS/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm > tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py > tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf > tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > I wonder why it refers to tintwizard.py as a binary. Please check this? Because it is in /usr/bin and has executable permission? $ rpmlint -i RPMS/i686/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.i686.rpm ... tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ... Cheers, Germán.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > Hello Ankur: > > First of all many thanks for the full review! :-) > > > Issues: > > > > 1. License is unclear. You'd probably be better off contacting upstream to > > choose one of the two. > > Actually, tint2[1] and tintwizard[2] are different projects with different > owners, although they are related, and this could be the reason that tint2 also > ships tintwizard. Maybe I must package them separately? > > [1]http://code.google.com/p/tint2/ > [2]http://code.google.com/p/tintwizard/ Yes. I think that would be better. > > > 2.rpmlint output: > > > > [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/tint2.spec > > SRPMS/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm > > tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > > tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > > tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py > > tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf > > tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > > 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > > > I wonder why it refers to tintwizard.py as a binary. Please check this? > > Because it is in /usr/bin and has executable permission? > > $ rpmlint -i RPMS/i686/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.i686.rpm > ... > tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py > Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. > ... > > Cheers, > Germán. It still shouldn't call it a binary AFAIK. It's a python script. Although I may be wrong. I'd suggest asking upstream to make up a man page for tintwizard and include it in the distribution too. Ankur
(In reply to comment #5) Hello Ankur: > Yes. I think that would be better. Well...I'm not sure right now if it is better to package them separately, because this version of tint2 has a config tool, called tint2conf, which once opened it uses tintwizard.py to configure the theme. But coming back to the license issue...is it not allowed to use a combination of 2 licenses in a single package? Could you please clarify this to me? Because in [1] says we can. If this is the case, I can package tint2 and tintwizard.py together without any problem. [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > It still shouldn't call it a binary AFAIK. It's a python script. Although I may > be wrong. I'd suggest asking upstream to make up a man page for tintwizard and > include it in the distribution too. Certainly I could suggest upstream to add a man page for tintwizard.py, but I don't think it is essential here because it is only a warning and to write a man page could take a long time... Ankur, again many thanks for your time, and I would like you to clarify my doubts in order to go on with this package. Regards, German.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Hello Ankur: > > > Yes. I think that would be better. > > Well...I'm not sure right now if it is better to package them separately, > because this version of tint2 has a config tool, called tint2conf, which once > opened it uses tintwizard.py to configure the theme. > You can package them separately, and add a dependancy on tintwizard in the tint package? That way, tint2 will install tintwizard as a separate package on installation. It's not advised to package two different programs into one package, even if they're only used for each other. An illustration: What if tintwizard has a new release, but tint doesn't? You'll have to push an update for the tint package as a whole ( a larger update for nuts ). > But coming back to the license issue...is it not allowed to use a combination > of 2 licenses in a single package? Could you please clarify this to me? Because > in [1] says we can. If this is the case, I can package tint2 and tintwizard.py > together without any problem. > > [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Yes, you can have multiple Licenses. Since I'm still for two separate packages, this isn't relevant here. > > > It still shouldn't call it a binary AFAIK. It's a python script. Although I may > > be wrong. I'd suggest asking upstream to make up a man page for tintwizard and > > include it in the distribution too. > > Certainly I could suggest upstream to add a man page for tintwizard.py, but I > don't think it is essential here because it is only a warning and to write a > man page could take a long time... > > Ankur, again many thanks for your time, and I would like you to clarify my > doubts in order to go on with this package. > > Regards, > German. A man page is suggested, you can always add it later and push an update. Please do request upstream to get started on it though. regards, Ankur
Hi Ankur: Sorry for the delay :( I've packaged tint2 and tintwizard separately. Please find updated files here: SPEC: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/tint2.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/tint2-0.11-2.fc13.src.rpm Koji build from scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2415326
hello, [Ankur@070905042 SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/tint2.spec tint2-0.11-2.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/tint2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://tint2.googlecode.com/files/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://tint2.googlecode.com/files/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://tint2.googlecode.com/files/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX
Thanks very much Ankur for your time! As you have already reviewed this, would you make the review of bug 625939? New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tint2 Short Description: A lightweight X11 desktop panel and task manager Owners: skytux Branches: f12 f13 f14 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
tint2-0.11-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tint2-0.11-2.fc12
tint2-0.11-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tint2-0.11-2.fc13
tint2-0.11-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tint2-0.11-2.fc14
tint2-0.11-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
tint2-0.11-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
tint2-0.11-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: tint2 New Branches: epel7 Owners: leigh123linux
Hi Germán, Can I have a epel7 branch please? I need it for my cinnamon port. cinnamon has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree: On x86_64: cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires zukitwo-gtk3-theme cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires zukitwo-gtk2-theme cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires tint2 cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires gnome-themes cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires blueman On ppc64: cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires zukitwo-gtk3-theme cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires zukitwo-gtk2-theme cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires tint2 cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires gnome-themes cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires blueman Please resolve this as soon as possible. Many thanks Leigh
Any comment from the Fedora maintainers?
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #19) > Hi Germán, > > Can I have a epel7 branch please? > I need it for my cinnamon port. > > > cinnamon has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree: > On x86_64: > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires zukitwo-gtk3-theme > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires zukitwo-gtk2-theme > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires tint2 > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires gnome-themes > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.x86_64 requires blueman > On ppc64: > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires zukitwo-gtk3-theme > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires zukitwo-gtk2-theme > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires tint2 > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires gnome-themes > cinnamon-2.0.14-7.el7.ppc64 requires blueman > Please resolve this as soon as possible. > > > Many thanks > > Leigh Yes! Please, tell me what to do. Germán.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: tint2 New Branches: el6 Owners: leigh123linux