Spec URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetile.spec SRPM URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetile-0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Bluetile is a tiling window manager for X based on xmonad. Windows are arranged automatically to tile the screen without gaps or overlap, maximising screen use. Bluetile's focus lies on making the tiling paradigm easily accessible for users coming from traditional window managers by drawing on known conventions and making all features available using the mouse. It also tries to be usable 'out of the box', making configuration unnecessary.
Some of quick comments: - the license tag must be BSD - BuildRequires: ghc is redundant - add braces to all macros, i.e. replace %_datadir/%name-%version/* by %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/*
(In reply to comment #1) > - BuildRequires: ghc is redundant Is it?
(In reply to comment #2) > Is it? As far as I can see, it's automatically added as a dependency of ghc-gtk-devel.
It's a haskell package, and ghc is not included by default in Fedora (yet). It's so fundamental to all haskell packages that a little redundancy won't hurt. Especially considering that the gtk BR could go away. In some cases, it's also necessary to specify a particular version of GHC, which the gtk package might not do.
Yes, I think you're right. It's probably better to leave BR as is.
Spec URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetile.spec SRPM URL: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetile-0.3-2.fc11.src.rpm
Yaakov what do you want to do with bluetile? It seems there hasn't been a release since xmonad 0.9 was released. I gather that xmonad-0.9.1 has most of bluetile's functionality so maybe we can just drop this?
Ok I closed ghc-xmonad-*bluetilebranch after talking to Yaakov since they should be in xmonad*-0.9.1. Leaving this open for now to wait for a updated package that works with current xmonad.
I checked a bit more carefully: - Bluetile layout is now in darcs: http://code.haskell.org/XMonadContrib/XMonad/Config/Bluetile.hs so will probably be in the next release I guess. and http://xmonad.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/bluetile-branch-merged-into-xmonad/ so I really think we can close this for now. :)
AFAIK i still want a 'bluetile' package that has a /usr/bin/bluetile that the end user can use. Unless xmonad-contrib provides this, let's not close this review just yet.
Yep I agree and the same occurred to me in the meantime too. It shouldn't be that hard - someone just needs to submit a patch and/or upload a new bluetile hackage. :) I think we can leave this assigned to you until such a package exists: alternatively we would close and then reopen when said package is available. :)
Jan told me he is planning to update bluetile to use xmonad-contrib after its next release which should include Config/Bluetile.hs.
Closing this out for now - please reopen or file a new review bug when a new bluetile package is on hackage. Thanks!
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluetile-0.4.1 was released so reopening in case anyone wants to pick this up again.
Yaakov? You still there?
I can update the package - there have been some upstream releases and it is looking promising. However it needs glade, ConfigFile and in turn MissingH.
(In reply to comment #16) > ConfigFile and in turn MissingH. I can submit these (they're on my backlog) and mark them as blocking this.
Just ConfigFile left to review. Updated packaging:- Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile-0.5.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
Also missing the following dependency: ghc-regex-compat
Thanks for testing. Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile-0.5.3-2.fc14.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2916632
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i *.rpm ../bluetile.spec bluetile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bluetile Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. bluetile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-bluetile-session Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Naming-Yes Version-release - Matches License - OK, BSD 3 clause variant No prebuilt external bits - OK Spec legibity - OK Package template - OK Arch support - OK Libexecdir - Used to store three files used by bluetile executable rpmlint - OK changelogs - OK Source url tag - OK, validated. Buildroot is ignored - Not present %clean is ignored - Not present Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK API documentation - None, it is an executable package. [+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . Licensed with BSD 3clause variant license. [+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+]MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. LICENSE file is included in /usr/share/doc/bluetile-{ver} folder [+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. md5sum bluetile-0.5.3.tar.gz 6c3aecd280640f8435a8400e102cae95 bluetile-0.5.3.tar.gz md5sum built/bluetile-0.5.3-2.fc15.src/bluetile-0.5.3.tar.gz 6c3aecd280640f8435a8400e102cae95 built/bluetile-0.5.3-2.fc15.src/bluetile-0.5.3.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on x86_64. [+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro [NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. Checked with rpmquery --list [NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides. [+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Checked with ls -lR [+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [NA]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [NA]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [-]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section desktop-file-install is not being used. [+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Should items [+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Installs fine. I am able to see bluetile option in gnome display manager. Once started, I see the dock panel to the left and a welcome dialog. When I click on the open windows button, two more windows are opened. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff is OK. Issues: As per packaging guidelines, desktop-file-install is to be used for the .desktop file. I feel that since we do not display the menu item in the menu, not using desktop-file-install should be fine. I clicked on the "Configure bluetile" button. I got a dialog to configure the file manager. I set it to nautilus and closed the dialog. When I clicked on the button again, I got an "Input/Output error".
Thanks for the review! (In reply to comment #21) > bluetile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bluetile > Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. > > bluetile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-bluetile-session > Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Ah, I had missed the included manpages: let me add them, thanks. > [-]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section desktop-file-install is not being used. Good catch, fixing. > I clicked on the "Configure bluetile" button. I got a dialog to configure the > file manager. I set it to nautilus and closed the dialog. When I clicked on > the button again, I got an "Input/Output error". Hmm, haven't tried that yet - might be some upstream bug? Above issues should be fixed in this updated package: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile.spec Srpm: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/bluetile/bluetile-0.5.3-3.fc14.src.rpm Scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2966663
Thanks. No rpmlint warnings now. Other changes look fine. I will try to reproduce the error after installing the package from our repos. If still there, I will file a bug upstream. APPROVED.
Thanks again for checking and reviewing the package. (In reply to comment #21) > I clicked on the "Configure bluetile" button. I got a dialog to configure the > file manager. I set it to nautilus and closed the dialog. When I clicked on > the button again, I got an "Input/Output error". I tried now in F14 and F13 (not quite sure yet on a user-friendly GUI way to start bluetile in F15 since it doesn't have a session menu yet AFAIK). For me clicking on the configure button in the bluetile panel just opens ".bluetilerc" in gedit. Perhaps you didn't have have all of gnome installed? and possibly bluetile should require some gnome component to avoid a filemanager configuration dialog? I think bluetile is designed mainly for people coming from gnome/metacity towards xmonad, so I guess it kind of assumes gnome is installed. Perhaps you can try to check "~/.xsession-errors" to see if there is any warnings output from bluetile when you have time.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bluetile Short Description: Easy tiling window manager for GNOME Owners: petersen Branches: f15 f14 f13 InitialCC: haskell-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Imported and built.
bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc15
bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc14
Package bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc15: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc15' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc15 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc13
Sorry was away for a while, I will be able to check this on Tuesday. Will report any issues here and would file a defect if necessary. Thanks
bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bluetile-0.5.3-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.