https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

harshjain075@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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=1802177

--- Comment #2 from harshjain075@gmail.com --- here is a successful koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41655269

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

harshjain075@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |elementary-tweaks - tweak |elementary-tweaks - Tweak |tool for pantheon de |settings for Pantheon DE

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This is much better, but there are still some mistakes:

1) The %changelog section is empty.

If you want to have an automatically generated changelog entry for version 1.0.1, then I suggest setting Release to "0%{?dist}" and running $ rpmdev-bumpspec elementary-tweaks.spec --comment="Initial package for fedora."

2) The description is too long. Please wrap the description text to fit into 80 (or better, 72) columns, and end it with a full stop (it's a sentence, after all).

3) for %setup and %autosetup, %{name}-%{version} is the default if you don't specify any argument for "-n". Just drop "-n %{name}-%{version}", since that's redundant.

4) The package still owns too many directories. You should do something like this (I didn't check the actual filenames): %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/elementary-tweaks.svg

And for the locale files, there's a %find_lang macro that must be used at the end of %install. There's documentation for that here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_handling_locale_...

5) You don't need to maintain a fork to package this for fedora. You can instead use a git snapshot of the current upstream development status.

Documentation for packaging git snapshots is available here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_ho...

Documentation for how to deal with pre-release snapshots is available here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps...

Hope that helps. If you have any questions about how to apply those rules to your package, just ask.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #7)

This is weird. SVG files usually go in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/; the "S" in "SVG" stands for scalable after all! Why are svg files being installed into the 24x24 and 32x32 directories in the first place? This is upstream's doing: see icon/meson.build. I also see explicit "height" and "width" tags in those SVG files, which is why I used the word "weird" to start this off. :-)

Maybe unusual / new, but not really weird. I know of several projects which provide hand-tuned vector graphics even for "sized" icons instead of rendered png files.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com

--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- * Tue Feb 25 2020 a-mere-peasant - 0.0.1-0.20200120.git5e2e0e1.1

You need to put you name and your email here

* Tue Feb 25 2020 Harsh Jain harshjain075@gmail.com - 0.0.1-0.20200120.git5e2e0e1.1

- Why is there a minorbump number in the release field? It should be:

Release: 0.1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 236 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/elementary- tweaks/review-elementary-tweaks/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/mo, /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: 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 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. [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. [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: elementary-tweaks-0.0.1-0.20200120.git5e2e0e1.fc33.1.x86_64.rpm

elementary-tweaks-debuginfo-0.0.1-0.20200120.git5e2e0e1.fc33.1.x86_64.rpm

elementary-tweaks-debugsource-0.0.1-0.20200120.git5e2e0e1.fc33.1.x86_64.rpm elementary-tweaks-0.0.1-0.20200120.git5e2e0e1.fc33.1.src.rpm elementary-tweaks.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/bh/LC_MESSAGES/elementary-tweaks-plug.mo elementary-tweaks.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/elementary-tweaks-plug.mo 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Version|31 |rawhide

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(harshjain075@gmai | |l.com)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802177

harshjain075@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(harshjain075@gmai |needinfo- needinfo- |l.com) |