[Bug 825517] New: Review Request: egtk - The eGTK (elementary GTK) themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and Xfwm4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
Bug ID: 825517 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: egtk - The eGTK (elementary GTK) themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and Xfwm4 Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.05.27/egtk.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.05.27/egtk-3.1-1.fc17.sr... Description: The official elementary GTK theme designed to be smooth, attractive, fast, and usable. Fedora Account System Username: odysseus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #1 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com --- RPM packages for Fedora 17 (for those willing to try the theme):
GTK+2 theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.05.27/RPMs/egtk-gtk2-the... GTK+3 theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.05.27/RPMs/egtk-gtk3-the... Metacity theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.05.27/RPMs/egtk-metacity... Xfwm4 theme: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.05.27/RPMs/egtk-xfwm4-th...
The execution of rpmlint on the Spec, SRPM and RPMs returns the following output:
egtk.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C eGTK 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- All the four subpackages own the folder %{_datadir}/themes/%{short_name}/ and contain the same doc files. Currently, there's no base package named egtk. I recommend to add a package named egtk-common and let it own the aforementioned folder and the doc files.
Moreover, it is not needed to correct a wrong FSF address. Give the developers an appropriate hint and leave the file untouched for the time being.
%setup -q -c -n %{name}-%{version}
You may drop "-n %{name}-%{version}" in %setup. Unless you need a different name for the build folder, you don't need to add this pattern explicitely.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #2)
All the four subpackages own the folder %{_datadir}/themes/%{short_name}/ and contain the same doc files. Currently, there's no base package named egtk. I recommend to add a package named egtk-common and let it own the aforementioned folder and the doc files.
%setup -q -c -n %{name}-%{version}
You may drop "-n %{name}-%{version}" in %setup. Unless you need a different name for the build folder, you don't need to add this pattern explicitely.
OK, I'll follow your suggestions.
Moreover, it is not needed to correct a wrong FSF address. Give the developers an appropriate hint and leave the file untouched for the time being.
I've already filed a bug report to the eGTK developers about the FSF address issue: https://bugs.launchpad.net/egtk/+bug/1005780 I'll remove the line that corrects it from the Spec file.
Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #4 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.06.17/egtk.spec
SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.06.17/egtk-3.1-2.fc17.sr...
RPM packages for Fedora 17: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.06.17/RPMs/
Output of rpmlint on the Spec file, SRPM and RPMs:
egtk-common.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/egtk-common-3.1/COPYING egtk-gtk2-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation egtk-gtk3-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation egtk-metacity-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation egtk-xfwm4-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation egtk.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C eGTK 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Your packages have to depend on the base package:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #6 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #5)
Your packages have to depend on the base package:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
So, what I should do is adding that "Requires" line to all of the "%package" sections (including that related to the "common" subpackage)?
But then, when I try to install the packages built from the so-edited Spec file, Yum complains about them requiring "egtk = 3.1-3.fc17" and doesn't allow me to install.
Isn't "Requires: egtk-common" in all "%package" sections (except "common") enough? For example, have a look at the Spec file of this package: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/gnome-shell-extensions/3.4.0/1.f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #6)
But then, when I try to install the packages built from the so-edited Spec file, Yum complains about them requiring "egtk = 3.1-3.fc17" and doesn't allow me to install.
Isn't "Requires: egtk-common" in all "%package" sections (except "common") enough?
No, it is usually not enough. In the current state, Yum could use any version of an egtk-common package as a dependency. The mentioned line was an example, directly taken from the guidelines. In our case, you have to change it as follows:
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
Imagine, the developers decide to stop with the xfce part, then the egtk-xfce subpackage remains in an older version and could become buggy. The explicite version number in the "Requires" line avoids this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #8 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #7)
No, it is usually not enough. In the current state, Yum could use any version of an egtk-common package as a dependency. The mentioned line was an example, directly taken from the guidelines. In our case, you have to change it as follows:
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
Imagine, the developers decide to stop with the xfce part, then the egtk-xfce subpackage remains in an older version and could become buggy. The explicite version number in the "Requires" line avoids this.
OK, this makes everything clear. Thank you. So, here's the revised version:
Spec URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.06.24/egtk.spec
SRPM URL: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.06.24/egtk-3.1-3.fc17.sr...
RPMs for Fedora 17: http://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/eGTK/2012.06.24/RPMs/
Output of rpmlint is the same as in comment #4.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4191661
$ rpmlint -i -v * egtk.src: I: checking egtk.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US A dictionary for the Enchant spell checking library is not available for the language given in the info message. Spell checking will proceed with rpmlint's built-in implementation for localized tags in this language. For better spell checking results in this language, install the appropriate dictionary that Enchant will use for this language, often for example hunspell-* or aspell-*.
egtk.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C eGTK The name of the package is repeated in its summary. This is often redundant information and looks silly in various programs' output. Make the summary brief and to the point without including redundant information in it.
egtk.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk (timeout 10 seconds) egtk.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk/3.x/3.1/+download/elementary.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) egtk-common.noarch: I: checking egtk-common.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk (timeout 10 seconds) egtk-common.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/egtk-common-3.1/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
egtk-gtk2-theme.noarch: I: checking egtk-gtk2-theme.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk (timeout 10 seconds) egtk-gtk2-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
egtk-gtk3-theme.noarch: I: checking egtk-gtk3-theme.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk (timeout 10 seconds) egtk-gtk3-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
egtk-metacity-theme.noarch: I: checking egtk-metacity-theme.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk (timeout 10 seconds) egtk-metacity-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
egtk.spec: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk/3.x/3.1/+download/elementary.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) egtk-xfwm4-theme.noarch: I: checking egtk-xfwm4-theme.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/egtk (timeout 10 seconds) egtk-xfwm4-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
All is OK so far. The warnings could be ignored, you don't have to write docs if upstream doesn't ship any.
--------------------------------- key:
[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. GPLv2 [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] 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. $ md5sum * bc28c1734f7210ebdd927808f2e7397e elementary.tar.gz bc28c1734f7210ebdd927808f2e7397e elementary.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - See Koji build above. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled. [.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information, the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used. [+] 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: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), ... [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] 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: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway) [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Works properly on my machine (metacity part not tested) [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. Currently no man page available.
--------------------------------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
--------------------------------------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #10 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #9)
$ rpmlint -i -v * egtk-common.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/egtk-common-3.1/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
All is OK so far. The warnings could be ignored, you don't have to write docs if upstream doesn't ship any.
And what about the error caused by the incorrect FSF address? Can you confirm there's no need to correct it and all I have to do is notifying upstream about?
PACKAGE APPROVED
Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fedora@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: egtk Short Description: The eGTK (elementary GTK) themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and Xfwm4 Owners: odysseus Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #10)
And what about the error caused by the incorrect FSF address? Can you confirm there's no need to correct it and all I have to do is notifying upstream about?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690919#c5
This is what "spot" said. I'm unsure whether we should touch license declarations in general. If upstream isn't dead yet, you shouldn't change anything, and wait until the address has been corrected in future releases. Keep in mind, we don't speak about the license itself, but about an address where users can get a printed copy of the license text from, if in doubt. But who would do this really...?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- egtk-3.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/egtk-3.1-1.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- egtk-3.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/egtk-3.1-1.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- egtk-3.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-07-05 19:29:57
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- egtk-3.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- egtk-3.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla