Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=elmarco/public_git/spice-gtk.git;a=blob;f=spice-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~elmarco/spice-gtk-0.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: spice Gtk client and libraries This first release supports a number of features, including but not limited to: - desktop display, using GLZ compression - audio playback/recording with PulseAudio - video in mjpeg - python and gobject-introspection modules - spicy: a simple Gtk client - snappy: a command line screenshot tool See the TODO list in the tarball for the list of known missing features.
ping
Just some quick comments: - You are mixing %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - GUI tools should have a desktop file (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files) - All documentation files (AUTHORS, README, COPYING, etc) must be added to %doc - The latest release 0.3 according your spec file but the SOURCE RPM is 0.1.0
(In reply to comment #2) > - You are mixing %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Fixed, replaced by %{buildroot} > - GUI tools should have a desktop file > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files) I am not sure if we want to make spicy a featured client just now. Spice-Gtk is rather a library. virt-viewer/virt-manager and hopefully others such as vinagre, have .desktop and will support spice-gtk. So I would rather avoid having a .desktop file for spicy now. > - All documentation files (AUTHORS, README, COPYING, etc) must be added to %doc Added in spice-gtk. > - The latest release 0.3 according your spec file but the SOURCE RPM is 0.1.0 It has been updated since then, please find latest srpm: http://fedorapeople.org/~elmarco/spice-gtk-0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Thanks
successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2701218
Hi, I'll review this and sponsor you, taking bug and removing need sponsor blocker. Regards, Hans
Full review done: Good: - rpmlint checks return: spice-gtk-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation spice-gtk-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation spice-gtk-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snappy spice-gtk-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spicy 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. These can all be ignored. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Some minor nitpicks / should fix items: - The Group tag for the main package should be: System Environment/Libraries - "Requires: %{name} = %{version}" should be dropped - The %description for the main package talks about a gtk client and libraries, but the gtk client is part of the tools package - Likewise the %description for tools does not mention the gtk client - The "Requires: %{name} = %{version}" does not specify the release in the package, when subpackages depend on other packages in the same SRPM the requires should specify the full NEVR (name epoch version release) like the Requires in the devel sub package - The prefered form for the defattr is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) rather then: %defattr(-, root, root) - There is no need to specify dir owner ship and the files inside it if you want the package to own the dir and all files, for example this: %dir %{_includedir}/spice-client-glib/ %{_includedir}/spice-client-glib/*.h Can be written simply as: %{_includedir}/spice-client-glib Likewise for spice-client-gtk, also you could consider using wildcards, condensing the %files devel to: %{_libdir}/libspice-client-g*.so %{_includedir}/spice-client-g* %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/spice-client-g*.pc %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/SpiceClientG*-1.0.gir %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/*
(In reply to comment #6) > Full review done: > > > Some minor nitpicks / should fix items: > - The Group tag for the main package should be: System Environment/Libraries done > - "Requires: %{name} = %{version}" should be dropped done > - The %description for the main package talks about a gtk client and libraries, > but the gtk client is part of the tools package done: "Client libraries for SPICE desktop servers." > - Likewise the %description for tools does not mention the gtk client done: "Simple clients for interacting with SPICE servers." > - The "Requires: %{name} = %{version}" does not specify the release in the > package, when subpackages depend on other packages in the same SRPM the > requires should specify the full NEVR (name epoch version release) like the > Requires in the devel sub package fixed, for spice-gtk-python > - The prefered form for the defattr is: > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > rather then: > %defattr(-, root, root) done > - There is no need to specify dir owner ship and the files inside it if > you want the package to own the dir and all files, for example this: > %dir %{_includedir}/spice-client-glib/ > %{_includedir}/spice-client-glib/*.h > Can be written simply as: > %{_includedir}/spice-client-glib > Likewise for spice-client-gtk, also you could consider using > wildcards, condensing the %files devel to: > %{_libdir}/libspice-client-g*.so > %{_includedir}/spice-client-g* > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/spice-client-g*.pc > %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/SpiceClientG*-1.0.gir > %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* done http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=elmarco/public_git/spice-gtk.git;a=commitdiff;h=59051f0de1772fadf1fd5ad6661d595585148279;hp=16c5fea8350282425bfe4d36ce4d4c5a9e381304 The SRPM is actually made from a git snapshot of version 0.3.20, which has a broken python module bug. I propose we wait until 0.4 release.
Hi, (In reply to comment #7) > http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=elmarco/public_git/spice-gtk.git;a=commitdiff;h=59051f0de1772fadf1fd5ad6661d595585148279;hp=16c5fea8350282425bfe4d36ce4d4c5a9e381304 > Looks good now. Note though that it is custom to bump the spec file's release field and add a changelog entry whenever you make changes, even during the package review phase. > The SRPM is actually made from a git snapshot of version 0.3.20, which has a > broken python module bug. > > I propose we wait until 0.4 release. Waiting with importing and building till the 0.4 release is fine with me. But lets move forward with getting you sponsored and creating a git repo and bugzilla component, etc. for spice-gtk. So that it can get imported and build as soon as 0.4 is released. If you can give me your fas account name, then I'll add you to the packagers group and sponsor you. After that you can move forward with the SCM request: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner Regards, Hans
(In reply to comment #8) > as soon as 0.4 is released. If you can give me your fas account name, then I'll > add you to the packagers group and sponsor you. After that you can move forward > with the SCM request: My FAS account is "elmarco". cheers
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > as soon as 0.4 is released. If you can give me your fas account name, then I'll > > add you to the packagers group and sponsor you. After that you can move forward > > with the SCM request: > > My FAS account is "elmarco". > As already mentioned on irc I've added you to the packagers group and sponsored you. I notice that your bugzilla account points to your @gmail.com address. You need to change it to your @redhat.com address, as that is what is in FAS. Or if you have 2 bugzilla accounts use the @redhat.com one to do the SCM request as that one will have the necessary rights.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: spice-gtk Short Description: glib/gtk client libraries for SPICE Owners: elmarco Branches: f14 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
spice-gtk-0.4-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spice-gtk-0.4-1.fc14
spice-gtk-0.4-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 spice-gtk'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spice-gtk-0.4-1.fc14
spice-gtk-0.5-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spice-gtk-0.5-1.fc14
spice-gtk-0.5-1.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: spice-gtk New Branches: el6 Owners: elmarco I'd like to build spice-gtk in epel6, I already have the .spec ready (based on the fedora one) and made a scratch build in epel6, but I can't push it because there is no branch for that yet (I'm a comaintainer of spice-gtk).