Review Swaps for sugar activities

[Dan Callaghan]

Excerpts from Jason L Tibbitts III's message of Mon Jul 02 07:38:40 +1000 2012:
> >>>>> "DC" == Dan Callaghan <dcallagh at redhat.com> writes:
> 
> DC> I will take all three (they look straightforward :-) in exchange for
> DC> saslwrapper:
> 
> Since you appear to be familiar with sugar, is there any possibility
> that you (or anyone else who is familiar with sugar stuff) could cast a
> glance at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708663 ?  This
> poor guy has been waiting for nearly 13 months for someone to look at
> his package.  I can do the bulk of the review and the sponsorship if no
> sponsor/sugar expert is available but I don't know how to actually do
> any testing of sugar-related things.

I am by no means a Sugar expert. I didn't know anything about it until 
I took these three reviews last night. :-) I am working from the Sugar 
activity guidelines here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SugarActivityGuidelines

and I installed F17 in a VM and did

yum groupinstall Sugar\ Desktop\ Environment

for testing out the packages. It also helps that the activities are in 
Python which I am well versed in.

As it happens I was planning to try and track down somebody responsible 
for those guidelines, because there are a few things which do not seem 
right to me. I've found the OLPC list (cc'ed) which seems to be the 
closest we have to a Sugar SIG. Hopefully somebody there can help out.

* The sample spec in the guidelines uses Group: Sugar/Activities, but 
  it's not mentioned anywhere else that I can find, and rpmlint 
  complains because it is non-standard. Are we supposed to just waive 
  that warning in the package review?

* The upstream-supplied setup.py for these three Sugar activities just 
  calls sugar.activity.bundlebuilder.start(), which seems to copy the 
  entire directory contents wholesale into /usr/share/sugar/activities 
  -- including stuff like setup.py, NEWS, COPYING... There are 
  apparently a lot of existing packages that do it too:

  $ repoquery -f /usr/share/sugar/activities/\*/setup.py | wc -l
  68

  Is it really necessary to include these files in the activity 
  directory? COPYING, NEWS, etc are already installed by %doc, as they 
  should be, so it seems superfluous to have them installed again. And 
  setup.py shouldn't be needed for an installed package. Should this 
  sugar.activity.bundlebuilder be patched to be more selective in what 
  it copies? Or should each activity package be responsible for cleaning 
  out its buildroot after the bundlebuilder has run? Or is there some 
  reason why these files should be installed in the activity directory?

-- 
Dan Callaghan <dcallagh at redhat.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120702/2177f9ae/attachment.sig>