[Bug 1827427] New: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Bug ID: 1827427 Summary: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: gnome-shell-extension-argos.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/gnome-shell-extension-argos-3-1... Description: Most GNOME Shell extensions do one thing: Add a button with a dropdown menu to the panel, displaying information and exposing functionality. Even in its simplest form, creating such an extension is a nontrivial task involving a poorly documented and ever-changing JavaScript API.
Argos lets you write GNOME Shell extensions in a language that every Linux user is already intimately familiar with: Bash scripts.
More precisely, Argos is a GNOME Shell extension that turns executables' standard output into panel dropdown menus. It is inspired by, and fully compatible with, the BitBar app for macOS. Argos supports many BitBar plugins without modifications, giving you access to a large library of well-tested scripts in addition to being able to write your own.
note: the current extension needs a patch to work on GNOME 3.36, and upstream didn't want to merge it until that version is widespread - looks like some contributors are stepping in to maintain it across different GNOME versions but to be safe, it's easier to deploy this as an RPM for now.
Fedora Account System Username: salimma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexjnewt@fastmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Would you like to swap with me? :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #1)
Would you like to swap with me? :)
sure!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Looks pretty good. I believe the spelling of "dropdown" should be "drop-down" as rpmlint suggests, but not a blocker.
I would query upstream to include a license file though, not a blocker though.
As well, not a blocker either, but it would be good to include the pull request for patch0 url in a comment, possibly with a brief one line explanation/summary of the patch.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: 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 is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jeremy/packagegits/fedora-reviews/gnome-shell-extension- argos/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
As I mentioned above, you should do this, but not a blocker
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
It would be good to add a comment that provides the url to the pull request for patch0.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-argos-3-1.20200110.fcb4751.fc33.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-argos-3-1.20200110.fcb4751.fc33.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-argos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dropdown -> drop down, drop-down, drown gnome-shell-extension-argos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS gnome-shell-extension-argos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dropdown -> drop down, drop-down, drown gnome-shell-extension-argos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_CA.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_CA.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). gnome-shell-extension-argos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dropdown -> drop down, drop-down, drown gnome-shell-extension-argos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS gnome-shell-extension-argos.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/p-e-w/argos <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/p-e-w/argos/archive/fcb475140bd9d0b4b95279ce56c4c28f36fb2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8c13bf14230bde8ddd199721055eda123ea2a5b94c15b7d1b4146900de5958ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c13bf14230bde8ddd199721055eda123ea2a5b94c15b7d1b4146900de5958ba
Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-argos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell
Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-argos: gnome-shell-extension-argos
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn gnome-shell-extension-argos-3-1.20200110.fcb4751.fc32.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Sorry, forgot to move to assigned
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |alexjnewt@fastmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
--- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #4)
Looks pretty good. I believe the spelling of "dropdown" should be "drop-down" as rpmlint suggests, but not a blocker.
Thanks. I normally just copy-paste relevant parts of upstream's README, but yeah keeping rpmlint quiet on this would make noticing other issues easier, so I'll do this
I would query upstream to include a license file though, not a blocker though.
Definitely will do
As well, not a blocker either, but it would be good to include the pull request for patch0 url in a comment, possibly with a brief one line explanation/summary of the patch.
Ah yes. The URL to the patch is actually there, but I'll put a URL to the pull request itself and some description. Good call, thanks!
Thanks for the review! Heh, had a mid-air collision just now when trying to submit this and also assign it to you at the same time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24619
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
--- Comment #9 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-argos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-74679c3b8a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-74679c3b8a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-74679c3b8a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-74679c3b8a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-74679c3b8a
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-37cb00170f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-37cb00170f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-37cb00170f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-37cb00170f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-37cb00170f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-05-07 03:09:50
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-74679c3b8a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-37cb00170f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com