https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558312
Bug ID: 1558312 Summary: Review Request: etherwallet - Client-side tool for interacting with the Ethereum network Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rene.purcell@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora... Description: This is my first package I submit, I know there will be few/lot of things to fix, I'm here to learn! There's no binary, no real dependency other than a browser. The package install the files in /usr/share/mew/ and copy a .desktop file which open /usr/share/mew/index.html with xdg-open.
I haven't seen any specific rules where crypto currency wallet wouldn't be accepted in official repo but I think this could spark an interesting discussion as those tools are used with users private key, they could present a risk for the user, they have to trust the packager and the original project.
I hope my spec file is not too ugly, Thanks Fedora Account System Username: arsenick
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558312
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558312
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Just a few preliminary remarks.
- Not needed: - Group: - BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-v%{version}-root - %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} - %clean %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} - %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- /usr/share/mew/ → %{_datadir}/mew/
- Split the description lines to stay below 80 characters per line
- No need to use macros for %{__install} and %{__cp}
- Don't put this in the summary: Package maintained by Rene Jr Purcell.
- Summary shouldn't end with a dot
- The correct shorthand for MIT is MIT, not "MIT License". See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses for a list of valid licenses.
- Don't depend on Firefox, let the user choose whatever browser they want
- Latest version is v3.21.02
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558312
--- Comment #2 from Rene Jr Purcell rene.purcell@gmail.com --- Thank you for your suggestions, I think I've fixed most/all of your point.
Here's the Spec and srpm updated.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558312
--- Comment #3 from Rene Jr Purcell rene.purcell@gmail.com --- I've updated the spec file according to your comment on my other package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558976#c1
So the LICENSE.md file has been added and the changelog section of the spec file has been populated. There was a new release of the upstream today, it's now in sync with it.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558312
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- I'm sorry I have forgotten this review.
The problem I have with this is that you're distributing the end result instead of building from the source with gulp.
You might need to package some gulp dependencies yourself to get the whole pipeline (may take some work).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org