[Bug 516654] Review Request: gnome-shell - Window management and application launching for GNOME [3]

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516654


Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #7 from Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com>  2009-08-12 09:57:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
> > So there are a couple of small items to fixup:
> > 
> > 1) Fix the rpmlint output
> 
> > gnome-shell.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2
> 
> This warning is bogus; an explicit requirement on the librsvg2 package is
> needed because that package provides the svg loader for gdk-pixbuf, which we
> use to load the imagines in the shell.

Ok.

> > gnome-shell.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gnome-shell-2.27.0/README
> 
> I included the README even if it was zero-length in the theory that the
> upstream would get non-lame and write one soon enough. Wait, I am the
> upstream... filed a reminder to myself as:
> 
>  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591564

Heh, cool :)

> > gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-shell.schemas
> 
> These aren't actually config files, just where GConf happens to put them. I'd
> rather have the rpmlint warning then to mark them spuriously as %config

That's fine with me.  rpmlint is known to be stupid.

> > 2) I think the package should own %{_datadir}/gnome-shell and
> > %{_libdir}/gnome-shell
> 
> Looks like it does to me?

Oops.  Yes.

> > 3) You probably need Requires: GConf2 for the usage in %pre/%postun
> 
> Not a bad idea - currently there will be a file dependency on libgconf-2.so.4
> which will pull that in, but an explicit requires is probably safer. I'll add
> it.
> 
> > 4) You don't actually call dekstop-file-install in the %install section.  
> 
> desktop-file-validate is a valid alternative now. The review checklist really
> should be updated... I complained about this reviewing someone else's package
> this a few weeks ago and was pointed to:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

Indeed.  Thanks for pointing that out.

> Updated:
> Spec URL: http://www.gnome.org/~otaylor/gnome-shell.spec
> SRPM URL: http://www.gnome.org/~otaylor/gnome-shell-2.27.0-4.src.rpm  

APPROVED.  Thanks, and happy packaging.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.