https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272140 --- Comment #8 from Carl George 🤠 <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- The guidelines state that the desktop file must be validated. Only validating on Fedora releases higher than 40 is insufficient. Instead of conditionalizing the check, it would be better to just set the minimum version of desktop-file-utils required to build. BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils >= 0.27-2 If you really need to ship this package on Fedora 40, and you don't think the desktop-file-utils maintainer will backport the category there, then you could instead use a condition in %install to modify the desktop file with desktop-file-install to make it compliant. %if %{defined fedora} && 0%{?fedora} < 41 desktop-file-install \ --remove-category COSMIC \ --add-category X-COSMIC \ --delete-original \ --dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/com.system76.CosmicTerm.desktop %endif https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage ================================================================================ Your snapshot notation is still not quite right. The guidelines state that the first part can be either the date as YYYYMMDD or a simple number. You have the commitdate macro in the format of YYYYMMDD.HHMMSS, which is not permitted. My guess is that you wanted to include this to ensure proper sorting if you had to release multiple upstream snapshots in one day. If that is a concern, then it would be better to just switch to using the simple number approach. Each time you take a snapshot from upstream you would just increase the integer. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots ================================================================================ I see you switched to using a URL for Source0. There is a recommend format in the guidelines that should be used. Source0: https://github.com/pop-os/cosmic-term/archive/%{commit}/cosmic-term-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_commit_revision I would also recommend including the shortcommit in the filename of Source1. The contents of that archive is likely to change with each new version/snapshot, and it will be confusing for the file name to remain the same. The lookaside cache technically allows that by storing files in directories named after the file's checksum, but I wouldn't want to rely on that mechanism if I don't have to. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272140 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202272140%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ 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
