https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #9 from Jens Lody <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #8) Thanks for the comments advices. > > Release: 0.1.%(date +%Y%m%d).%{checkout}%{?dist} > > The extra dot before "git" is slightly off the guidelines for snapshot > packages: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > > > > fedora-review finds no issues, except the issue with owning > > directories owned by other packages. But this is a must for > > gnome-shell-extensions, that do not require gnome-shell-extensions-common. > > They can be the only package that uses these directories and > > therefore they have to own them. > > In case of doubt, better ask for feedback on packaging@ list. > > In my opinion, "Requires: gnome-shell-extension-common" would be the way to > go. > > The gnome-shell-extension-common package description tells that it is also > sort of a -filesystem package (similar to the main purpose the > hicolor-icon-theme package serves nowadays): > > $ rpm -qi gnome-shell-extension-common|tail -2 > optional functionality to GNOME Shell. Common files and directories > needed by extensions are provided here. > > The yellow box here covers -filesystem packages: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your > _package_to_function > I will fix the first two this evening (UTC+2). By the way: I just removed the dependency to gnome-shell-extensions-common, because it's not an "official" filesystem-package (as far as I know) and at least one other package does it the same way I did (gnome-shell-extension-background-logo). > > > %postun > > %posttrans > > News for Rawhide. File triggers: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-August/012685.html > For the file triggers: does it mean I have to distinct between different versions of Fedora in the spec-file or use a different spec-file for rawhide ? And do I need the direct dependency to glib2, or is the indirect dependency via gnome-shell-extensions-common enough ? Rpmlint in fedora-review spits out an error if I use this, I think it's because the extension-package is noarch, but glib2 (obviously) not. > [...] > > What else? > > As I don't call myself an expert on GNOME Shell extensions, let me ask: What > is the standard way to find these packages in the Fedora package collection. > In gnome-tweak-tool I may only visit the web site to install more. And in > GNOME Software, I cannot find them either (likely because of no appdata > files in those packages). I have to admit, that I use yumex (or yumex-dnf) on my laptop, so it's easy to find by name, on commandline: "dnf list gnome-shell-extension*". I do not use gnome-software often, so I did not even recognize, that it does not even list the extensions. Probably some kind of bug (or design-flaw) in gnome-software. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review