[Bug 2334997] New: Review Request: turtle - Manage your git repositories with easy-to-use dialogs in Nautilus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
Bug ID: 2334997 Summary: Review Request: turtle - Manage your git repositories with easy-to-use dialogs in Nautilus. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-4... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-4... Description: Turtle is a graphical interface for version control intended to run on gnome and nautilus. Fedora Account System Username: philippun
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://gitlab.gnome.org/ph | |ilippun1/turtle
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8455884 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/turtle/2334997-turtle/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/nautilus-python [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/glib-2.0, /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-turtlevcs , turtle-cli , turtle-nautilus [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-turtlevcs-0.11-1.fc42.noarch.rpm turtle-cli-0.11-1.fc42.noarch.rpm turtle-nautilus-0.11-1.fc42.noarch.rpm turtle-0.11-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxm_kip7r')] checks: 32, packages: 4
turtle.src: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum} python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-gobject turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_cli turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_service python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle-nautilus.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle.src: E: description-line-too-long Turtle is a graphical interface for version control intended to run on gnome and nautilus. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 20 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-gobject turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_cli turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_service turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle-nautilus.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/philippun1/turtle/-/archive/0.11/turtle-0.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 152ff3d3fe039762c37a5fa562e088b84ac890c6db2e1072c3c1aa3fab03ff39 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 152ff3d3fe039762c37a5fa562e088b84ac890c6db2e1072c3c1aa3fab03ff39
Requires -------- python3-turtlevcs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-gobject python3.13dist(dbus-python) python3.13dist(pygit2) python3.13dist(secretstorage)
turtle-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3-turtlevcs
turtle-nautilus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nautilus nautilus-python python3-dbus turtle-cli
Provides -------- python3-turtlevcs: python-turtlevcs python3-turtlevcs python3.13-turtlevcs python3.13dist(turtlevcs) python3dist(turtlevcs)
turtle-cli: application() application(de.philippun1.turtle.desktop) turtle-cli
turtle-nautilus: turtle-nautilus
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2334997 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, Java, fonts, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please add BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme b) Please use desktop-file-install https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files c) Please add an appdata file d) Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package... e) Please block the python package name on pypi to ensure nothing else uses the same installation directories
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=2334997
--- Comment #3 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #4 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- Things I changed: - add hicolor-icon-theme dependency - use desktop-file-validate for desktop file (was recommended if no changes are made to it instead of desktop-file-install) - add appdata file - upload turtlevcs to https://pypi.org/project/turtlevcs/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8587810 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/turtle/2334997- turtle/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/nautilus-python [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas, /usr/share/glib-2.0, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-turtlevcs , turtle-cli , turtle-nautilus [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-turtlevcs-0.11.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm turtle-cli-0.11.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm turtle-nautilus-0.11.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm turtle-0.11.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp562dar28')] checks: 32, packages: 4
turtle.src: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum} python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-gobject turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_cli turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_service python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle-nautilus.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle.src: E: description-line-too-long Turtle is a graphical interface for version control intended to run on gnome and nautilus. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 17 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-gobject turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_cli turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turtle_service turtle-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-turtlevcs.noarch: W: no-documentation turtle-nautilus.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/philippun1/turtle/-/archive/0.11.1/turtle-0.11.1.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 362dc3f833fd0c61c9c5ae3e060b7bffde7552bdc400ea6b6de01b53a4fc84b2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 362dc3f833fd0c61c9c5ae3e060b7bffde7552bdc400ea6b6de01b53a4fc84b2
Requires -------- python3-turtlevcs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-gobject python3.13dist(dbus-python) python3.13dist(pygit2) python3.13dist(pygobject) python3.13dist(secretstorage)
turtle-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3-turtlevcs
turtle-nautilus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nautilus nautilus-python python3-dbus turtle-cli
Provides -------- python3-turtlevcs: metainfo() metainfo(de.philippun1.turtle.metainfo.xml) python-turtlevcs python3-turtlevcs python3.13-turtlevcs python3.13dist(turtlevcs) python3dist(turtlevcs)
turtle-cli: application() application(de.philippun1.turtle.desktop) turtle-cli
turtle-nautilus: turtle-nautilus
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2334997 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Java, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change: Requires: python3-gobject to Requires: python3-gobject Requires: hicolor-icon-theme This will nsure the hicolor directoreis are owned. b) /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas, /usr/share/glib-2.0, and /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, are still not owned though. For dbus, not sure of appropriate package to require. For glib perhaps check if one of the requires below helps: Requires: gobject-introspection-devel%{?_isa} Requires: libadwaita Requires: python3-gobject-base Requires: gtksourceview5-devel
Am packaging cambalache which uses some similar dependencies: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/cambalache.spec
c) /usr/share/nautilus-python is not owned either, please add: %dir %{_datadir}/nautilus-python to the spec file to own it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2085978 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2085978&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8587810 to 8945288
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8945288 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #11 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- I tried to find the missing folder ownerships via rpm -qf.
Things changed in the latest package: - add glib2, dbus-common, hicolor-icon-theme as requirements for folder ownership - add ownership to %{_datadir}/nautilus-python - add libadwaita requirement because it is necessary to run the application - install man pages and readme to address remaining warnings
The Review template still mentions the following folders without ownership:
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/glib-2.0, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas
Is there a way to test the ownership locally? rpmlint does not give any output on it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- $ dnf repoquery whatowns /usr/share/dbus-1 Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. budgie-control-center-common-0:1.4.0-3.fc41.noarch budgie-control-center-common-0:1.4.0-4.fc41.noarch dbus-common-1:1.14.10-4.fc41.noarch efl-0:1.27.0-11.fc41.i686 efl-0:1.27.0-11.fc41.x86_64 gnome-text-editor-0:47.0-1.fc41.x86_64 gnome-text-editor-0:47.4-1.fc41.x86_64 ptyxis-0:47.12-1.fc41.x86_64 ptyxis-0:47.2-1.fc41.x86_64 stratisd-0:3.7.1-1.fc41.x86_64 stratisd-0:3.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64 wike-0:3.1.0-1.fc41.noarch
python3-turtlevcs needs to require the packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #13 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- Ah thanks, that makes sense. But python3-turtlevcs cannot require glib2 (E: explilcit-lib-dependency) which owns /usr/share/glib-2.0 and /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas.
Btw: "dnf repoquery whatowns" does not work on my rawhide installation, I used "dnf repoquery --whatrequires". Does that do the same?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #14 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2085985 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2085985&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8945288 to 8945425
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8945425 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #17 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2085988 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2085988&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8945425 to 8945460
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8945460 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #20 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- Now only /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas, /usr/share/glib-2.0 are left without known owners. According to "dnf repoquery --whatdepends=glib2" both python3-dbus and python3-gobject depend on glib2 which would make it an indirect dependency. So I am not really sure what to do here, since glib2 cannot be a direct dependency (E: explilcit-lib-dependency).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #22 from Philipp Unger philipp.unger.1988@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/philippun/turtle/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2088220 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2088220&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8945460 to 8992716
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334997
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8992716 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com