https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314 Timothée Floure <timothee.floure@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Timothée Floure <timothee.floure@xxxxxxxxxx> --- A few funky things (such as file in /etc/opt/) due to integration with what looks like an ill-behaved third-party (looking at you Chrome) and splitting an existing package (=> hence cannot really 'provide' the ancestor), but sane altogether. LGTM, many thanks for looking into this gnome extension connector issue. 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services ^ provided by dbus-common, which is required by dbus-broker, which is in turn required by the dbus package (which is a dpeendency of this package). This case seem common (e.g. see gnome-terminal package). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/chromium(chrome-gnome- shell, chromium, webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config), /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts(chromium, webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token-signing), /etc/opt/chrome(chrome-remote-desktop, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config), /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts(chrome-remote-desktop, webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token- signing), /usr/lib64/mozilla/native-messaging-hosts(webextension- token-signing, mozilla-filesystem, textern, webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell) ^ OK as per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership "Packages must own all directories they put files in, except for: [...] any directories owned by other packages in your package’s natural dependency chain"... => mozilla-filesystem, fedora-chromium-config [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./home/fnux/2127314-gnome-browser-connector/review.txt [-]: 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. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. ^ /etc/opt is funky... but it looks like that's where chrome is looking for config as it is provided so by upstream. It makes sense to ship them even if Chrome is not a part of Fedora, as I suspect many users use it. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell ^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original chrome-gnome-shell package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent? gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.browser_connector.json gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.browser_connector.json gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json ^ There is no other place for those files AFAIK - that's where chrom* are expecting them. gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-browser-connector gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-browser-connector-host ^ Not provided by upstream, and is not a CLI tool anyway. gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later ^ Note that the Fedora identifier for GPL-3.0-or-later is GPLv3+, although SPDX identifier are allowed as well: "The License: field for new packages as of July 2022 must be filled with the appropriate SPDX license identifier or expression from the list of allowed licenses for Fedora." https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/gnome-browser-connector/42/gnome-browser-connector-42.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd9702ce1c163606ca32b8c13d1f3ba6e82b247cf87aac60610b411df1556212 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd9702ce1c163606ca32b8c13d1f3ba6e82b247cf87aac60610b411df1556212 Requires -------- gnome-browser-connector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 dbus gnome-shell hicolor-icon-theme mozilla-filesystem python(abi) python3-gobject-base Provides -------- gnome-browser-connector: application() application(org.gnome.BrowserConnector.desktop) gnome-browser-connector gnome-browser-connector(x86-64) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/gnome-extensions) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
