[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673

Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> New potential packager, doing informal reviews as requested in 'How to get
> sponsored'.

Good work Jeremy!


> Full review included below; the only major point I noticed was a lack of
> Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries.

Like Yanko said above, rpm autogenerates Requires for dynamically linked
libraries, no need to list them again manually. Note the
"libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)" and others down below, this is how an autogenerated
dep on the gtk library looks like.

$ rpm -qp --requires swell-foop-3.7.92-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit)
libXdamage.so.1()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit)
libXfixes.so.3()(64bit)
libXi.so.6()(64bit)
libXrandr.so.2()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libclutter-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libclutter-gtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libcogl-pango.so.12()(64bit)
libcogl.so.12()(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1


> A minor nit - the guidelines say 'MUST' run desktop-file-install; this .spec
> only does a desktop-file-validate.  Not sure if this spec or the guidelines
> should change...

Yeah, the wording in the guidelines is unclear. There's two distinct cases:

 1) The package doesn't include the desktop file and we instead ship one in the
rpm package as a downstream change. In this case, like the guidelines say, we
MUST use the 'desktop-file-install' as opposed to just copying the file to the
final location.

 2) The package includes a desktop file and installs it to the final location
itself. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to install it again with
'desktop-file-install'; this is where 'desktop-file-validate' is appropriate.

Also, the guidelines say that it's either one or the other. Quoting:
"one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate (in
%check or %install)"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L5liI4Jy10&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]