https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rbean(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |rbean(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I'll take this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #3 from Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Updated with GPLv3 LICENSE file. Spec URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-1... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Issues: ======= Four blockers.. easy to fix, though. These are the last ones. Fix 'em up and I'll approve the package without further delay! I found that if I had fedmsg and fedmsg-notify removed on my system, then starting the shell extension would crash the gnome shell. Can you add "fedmsg-notify" as a Requires item? [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Thanks for including the LICENSE in the tarball. Can you include it in %doc, too? [!]: 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 %doc. Also, since you won't be building this for el5, can you please remove the defattr and rm %{buildroot}? [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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 %doc. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg.noarch: W: no-documentation gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell >= 3.2.0 Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg = 0.1.0-2.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 864090 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Solid. Approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.