Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-contacts - Contacts manager for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Summary: Review Request: gnome-contacts - Contacts manager for GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: el.il@doom.co.il QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts.spec SRPM URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts-0.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: gnome-contacts is a standalone contacts manager for GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fabian@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2011-06-19 07:56:22 EDT --- Just some comments:
- All doc files missing in the %doc section. - Why aren't your using the -devel packages as BRs and let rpm do the rest?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #2 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-06-19 08:22:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Just some comments:
- All doc files missing in the %doc section.
Oops
- Why aren't your using the -devel packages as BRs and let rpm do the rest?
Ok, if that's what you want.
Spec (same link): http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts.spec New SRPM: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts-0.1.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #3 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-06-19 08:29:17 EDT --- rpmlint output: [elad@elephant result]$ rpmlint *rpm gnome-contacts.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/COPYING gnome-contacts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-contacts gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/main.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/contacts-contact-pane.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/contacts-list-pane.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/contacts-menu-button.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/contacts-app.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/contacts-contact.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/contacts-store.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.0/src/contacts-utils.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 1 warnings.
Wrong FSF address - reported upstream: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=652934 No manual - I assume upsteam will have a manual for it in the stable release.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2011-06-19 09:30:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Just some comments:
- Why aren't your using the -devel packages as BRs and let rpm do the rest?
Ok, if that's what you want.
The guidelines are only talking about -devel packages as BRs.
At the moment I have no Fedora Rawhide machine available but it seams that this is a gui application. Tools with a gui needs a .desktop file.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2011-06-19 09:33:27 EDT --- Your package doesn't own %{_datadir}/%{name}/* Can you please recheck this according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #6 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-06-19 09:46:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
At the moment I have no Fedora Rawhide machine available but it seams that this is a gui application. Tools with a gui needs a .desktop file.
It's a gui application in early development stage, that doesn't have upstream desktop file or even an icon. I prefer to wait for upstream to provide a desktop file and an icon.
(In reply to comment #5)
Your package doesn't own %{_datadir}/%{name}/* Can you please recheck this according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
What a stupid mistake. Fixed.
Spec (same link): http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts.spec New SRPM: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts-0.1.0-3.fc16.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mariobl@freenet.de
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-06-20 16:45:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
At the moment I have no Fedora Rawhide machine available but it seams that this is a gui application. Tools with a gui needs a .desktop file.
It's a gui application in early development stage, that doesn't have upstream desktop file or even an icon. I prefer to wait for upstream to provide a desktop file and an icon.
Should't be that hard to add a *.desktop file. Look here:
-----------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/bin/env xdg-open
[Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Type=Application Terminal=false Exec=gnome-contacts Name=Contacts Icon=gnome-panel-launcher
----------------------------------------------------------
"Icon" should be replaced by a GTK stock icon or by an icon from hicolor-icon-theme while adding this to "Requires".
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mclasen@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com 2011-06-20 19:33:41 EDT --- I have committed a desktop file upstream, so the problem should solve itself in short order.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #9 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-06-21 08:31:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
I have committed a desktop file upstream, so the problem should solve itself in short order.
Should I build a new version of the package from git snapshot, wait for a new release or add the desktop file myself for now?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com 2011-06-21 09:28:47 EDT --- I would propose to ignore the problem for now, but thats just me, and I'm not doing this review...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-06-21 13:50:29 EDT --- Just add the desktop file from Git as a second source. This seems to be the most painless temporary solution.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |717653
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #12 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-06-29 09:48:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
Just add the desktop file from Git as a second source. This seems to be the most painless temporary solution.
The desktop file is generated on compile time, which means applying two patches from git. I don't know how to extract singular patches from git yet, so I can't do it. I tried to create a new version of the gnome-contacts rpm from git master but it won't build since we don't have vala 0.13 on rawhide yet.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #13 from Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com 2011-07-04 05:53:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
Just add the desktop file from Git as a second source. This seems to be the most painless temporary solution.
The desktop file is generated on compile time, which means applying two patches from git. I don't know how to extract singular patches from git yet, so I can't do it. I tried to create a new version of the gnome-contacts rpm from git master but it won't build since we don't have vala 0.13 on rawhide yet.
gnome-contacts 0.1.1 was released: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/ftp-release-list/2011-July/msg00003.html
As for creating a patch from git, try "git format-patch -1 SHA" where SHA identifies the commit. Or snarf it from the git web interface.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #14 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-07-04 07:53:12 EDT --- There is no use in updating the srpm until we have vala 0.13 in rawhide - it won't build without it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-07-04 13:45:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14)
There is no use in updating the srpm until we have vala 0.13 in rawhide - it won't build without it.
-- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Add a dependency to bug #710421 to your review request. That's it (for the time being).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Bug 712923 depends on bug 717653, which changed state.
Bug 717653 Summary: Please update vala to 0.13 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717653
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|717653 |710421
--- Comment #16 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-07-04 14:16:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
There is no use in updating the srpm until we have vala 0.13 in rawhide - it won't build without it.
-- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Add a dependency to bug #710421 to your review request. That's it (for the time being).
It already depends on #717653, which I now see is a dupe of #710421.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #17 from Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com 2011-07-05 05:20:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14)
There is no use in updating the srpm until we have vala 0.13 in rawhide - it won't build without it.
It will build without it, as there's pre-parsed C files in the tarball. You just need to game the configure script: sed -i 's,0.13.0,0.12.0,g' configure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #18 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-07-05 06:18:33 EDT --- Updated to 0.1.1 SRPM: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts-0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-contacts.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cwickert@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |cwickert@fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #19 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-09 09:44:45 EDT --- Stay tuned for a full review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-09 11:11:24 EDT --- OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/gnome-contacts-* gnome-contacts.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/COPYING gnome-contacts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-contacts gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-app.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-contact-pane.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-list-pane.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-types.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-contact.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/main.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-utils.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-store.c gnome-contacts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gnome-contacts-0.1.1/src/contacts-menu-button.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 1 warnings.
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 06aeec251464cc5fb2a5731e830335b3 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i686 and x86_64 N/A - 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. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates (only %{_datadir}/%{name}) OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly but does not include %defattr(...) OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly validated with desktop-file-validate in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg N/A - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin N/A - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete N/A - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
Suggestions: - Description could be more detailed. - Please include '%defattr(-,root,root,-)' in the files section. It's no longer strictly required, but assures compatibility with more rpm versions. - Same goes for %clean - The category 'System' in the desktop file is definitely wrong. Use desktop-file-install to change it to "GNOME;GTK;Office;ContactManagement;" and make sure the change gets upstreamed. - Drop README file as long as it's empty
None of this is a blocker, so you can fix these later and to your own judgment.
Please make sure to not accidentally try to bring this to F15, it won't build because folks os too old.
Package is APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #21 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-07-09 11:24:12 EDT --- Thank you!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #22 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-07-09 11:26:49 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gnome-contacts Short Description: Contacts manager for GNOME Owners: elad alexl Branches: InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #23 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-07-09 11:27:13 EDT ---
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
--- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-07-09 19:43:49 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-07-12 02:53:12
--- Comment #25 from Elad Alfassa el.il@doom.co.il 2011-07-12 02:53:12 EDT --- Closing, it's on rawhide.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712923
Bug 712923 depends on bug 710421, which changed state.
Bug 710421 Summary: vala-0.13.1 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710421
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla