Spec URL: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.0/f31-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.0/f31-backgrounds-31.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: This package contains desktop backgrounds for the Fedora 31 default theme. Pulls in themes for GNOME, KDE, Mate and Xfce desktops. Fedora Account System Username:luya
COPR built available on http://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/luya/f31-backgrounds/build/1021674/ Added dependent and blocker report.
1) The License tag of the base subpackage is repeated redundantly. 2) Attribution-Extras says: $ grep Licence Attribution-Extras | sort | uniq Licence: CC-BY-SA 4.0 Licence: CC-BY 4.0 Licence: CC0 1.0 Licence: Free Art 1.0 But the license tag of extras-base is: License: CC-BY and CC-BY-SA When in fact it should be: License: CC-BY and CC-BY-SA and CC0 and Free Art The license file also contain only the CC licenses, not Free Art: %license CC-BY-SA-4.0 CC-BY-4.0 CC0-1.0 Attribution-Extras
Oh, there is Free Art 1.3 text in the package as well.
Some of the images in extras are quite small: $ file extras/*.png extras/a-world-lightyears-from-home.png: PNG image data, 256 x 191, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced extras/cabines-de-bains.png: PNG image data, 256 x 160, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced extras/descent-to-loch-ericht.png: PNG image data, 4864 x 2736, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced extras/green-leaf.png: PNG image data, 256 x 144, 8-bit/color RGBA, non-interlaced extras/icelandic-stone-beach.png: PNG image data, 3840 x 2160, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced extras/last-light-on-antler-peak.png: PNG image data, 256 x 144, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced extras/life-is-blue.png: PNG image data, 4032 x 2268, 8-bit/color RGBA, non-interlaced extras/our-world.png: PNG image data, 256 x 144, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced
The wallpaper looks good to me. It is very suitable for screens with icons on them, because of the subtle colours. Thank you.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > 1) The License tag of the base subpackage is repeated redundantly. Removed > > 2) Attribution-Extras says: > > $ grep Licence Attribution-Extras | sort | uniq > Licence: CC-BY-SA 4.0 > Licence: CC-BY 4.0 > Licence: CC0 1.0 > Licence: Free Art 1.0 > > > But the license tag of extras-base is: > > > > The license file also contain only the CC licenses, not Free Art: > > %license CC-BY-SA-4.0 CC-BY-4.0 CC0-1.0 Attribution-Extras Free Art is now included. Here is the updated files with fixed size on some extra wallpapers Spec URL: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.0/f31-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.0/f31-backgrounds-31.0.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
The specfile version hasn't changed, but the SRPM version did. Also, the SRPM link gives 404. Are the links correct?
I forgot to change v31.0.0 to v31.0.1. Typing from a cellphone
Spec URL: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.1/f31-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.1/f31-backgrounds-31.0.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
Package should install a .desktop file using desktop-file-install or run desktop-file-validate. Package must own all directories that it creates. Directories without known owners: /usr/share/wallpapers /usr/share/gnome-background-properties /usr/share/backgrounds/f31 License mismatch: The package installs Free-Art-1.3, but the files are under Free-Art-1.0 (according to Attribution-Extras). Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1745846-f31-backgrounds/srpm/f31-backgrounds.spec 2019-08-28 06:28:18.636493744 +0200 +++ /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1745846-f31-backgrounds/srpm-unpacked/f31-backgrounds.spec 2019-08-27 15:08:09.000000000 +0200 @@ -37,4 +37,5 @@ %package base Summary: Base images for Fedora %{relnum} default background +License: CC-BY-SA %description base
Wallpaper is nice. However, COPR repository seemed to have trouble updating using sudo dnf copr enable luya/f31-backgrounds sudo dnf install f31-backgrounds-kde gives an error Failed to download metadata for repo 'copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:luya:f31-backgrounds' Was easier to rebuild rpm, have made a pull request to update readme with build and installation instructions: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/pull/14 This follows Magazine article: http://fedoramagazine.org/how-rpm-packages-are-made-the-source-rpm/ not the more complete documentation at: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #10) > Package should install a .desktop file using desktop-file-install or run > desktop-file-validate. The .desktop file is specific to KDE Plasma as provided by KDE SIG themselves. > > Package must own all directories that it creates. > Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/wallpapers > /usr/share/gnome-background-properties > /usr/share/backgrounds/f31 > Weird. Something is not right on the fedora-review. The spec file clearly lists: %dir %{_datadir}/backgrounds/%{bgname} %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties/ which should set to the right owners. The ownership of "/usr/share/wallpapers" should be set to KDE using their macro %{_kde4_datadir}. It seems like a bug. > > License mismatch: The package installs Free-Art-1.3, but the files are under > Free-Art-1.0 (according to Attribution-Extras). > Fixed. > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- > /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1745846-f31-backgrounds/srpm/f31- > backgrounds.spec 2019-08-28 06:28:18.636493744 +0200 > +++ > /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/1745846-f31-backgrounds/srpm-unpacked/ > f31-backgrounds.spec 2019-08-27 15:08:09.000000000 +0200 > @@ -37,4 +37,5 @@ > %package base > Summary: Base images for Fedora %{relnum} default background > +License: CC-BY-SA > > %description base Fixed. SPECS: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.2/f31-backgrounds.spec SRPMS: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.2/f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #12) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #10) > > Package should install a .desktop file using desktop-file-install or run > > desktop-file-validate. > > The .desktop file is specific to KDE Plasma as provided by KDE SIG > themselves. Does that mean it doesn't need to be validated? Why not? http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files "It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the package, one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install) and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils, to help ensure .desktop file safety and spec-compliance." > > Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Directories without known owners: > > /usr/share/wallpapers > > /usr/share/gnome-background-properties > > /usr/share/backgrounds/f31 > > > > Weird. Something is not right on the fedora-review. The spec file clearly > lists: > > %dir %{_datadir}/backgrounds/%{bgname} > %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties/ > > which should set to the right owners. The ownership of > "/usr/share/wallpapers" should be set to KDE using their macro > %{_kde4_datadir}. > It seems like a bug. OK, let me recheck: /usr/share/backgrounds/f31 is owned by f31-backgrounds-base /usr/share/gnome-background-properties is owned by f31-backgrounds-gnome /usr/share/wallpapers is owned by kde-filesystem Mea cupla, everything is indeed alright there. Downloading SRPM to check the remaining two.
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #12) > > License mismatch: The package installs Free-Art-1.3, but the files are under > > Free-Art-1.0 (according to Attribution-Extras). > > > > Fixed. Indeed. Not sure if relicensing the work like this is ok, but it was done upstream, so I don't really cere. > > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM ... > > Fixed. Indeed.
Rpmlint ------- I've removed dangling-relative-symlink (too many) and invalid-url (my mock has no internet access): Checking: f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-base-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-animated-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-kde-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-gnome-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-mate-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-xfce-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-extras-base-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-extras-gnome-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-extras-mate-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-extras-kde-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-extras-xfce-31.0.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm f31-backgrounds.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-base.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-animated.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-kde.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-gnome.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-mate.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-xfce.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-base.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-gnome.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-mate.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-kde.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-xfce.noarch: W: no-documentation 13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 593 warnings. Ok. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- f31-backgrounds-extras-xfce.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-gnome.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-animated.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-mate.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-kde.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-base.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-mate.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-extras-gnome.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-kde.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-base.noarch: W: no-documentation f31-backgrounds-xfce.noarch: W: no-documentation 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 605 warnings. Ok.
Not to get lost in the comments. Lint the desktop files in %check or install them via the install tool and I will approve the package.
desktop-file-validate will complain about the missing "Type" which only provides application, link and directory. > desktop-file-validate rpmbuild/SOURCES/f31-metadata.desktop > rpmbuild/SOURCES/f31-metadata.desktop: error: required key "Type" in group "Desktop Entry" is not present KDE SIG provided that workaround removing Type parameter for displaying wallpapers on Plasma on Fedora 25. http://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/f25-backgrounds/c/9beaa478698cb6a0657034b7eb1db4c835f78b0b?branch=master You can discuss with them.
Updated files taking account of desktop-file-validate SPECS: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.2/f31-backgrounds.spec SRPMS: http://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v31.0.2/f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-2.fc30.src.rpm
install -D -p -m644 %{SOURCE1} \ %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/plasma/desktoptheme/%{Bg_Name}/metadata.desktop %check desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/plasma/desktoptheme/%{Bg_Name}/metadata.desktop This can be probably replaced with one call to desktop-file-install. Anyway, package APPROVED. Thanks
Thank you Miro!
(In reply to Lukas Ruzicka from comment #5) > The wallpaper looks good to me. It is very suitable for screens with icons > on them, because of the subtle colours. Thank you. Glad to hear that.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at http://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/f31-backgrounds
Discussed during the 2019-09-03 blocker review meeting: [1] The decision to classify this bug as an "AcceptedBlocker" was made as it violates the following criteria: "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases" [1] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2019-09-03/f31-blocker-review.2019-09-03-16.01.txt
FEDORA-2019-8b2cccfabf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8b2cccfabf
desktop-backgrounds-31.0.0-1.fc31, f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8b2cccfabf
desktop-backgrounds-31.0.0-1.fc31, f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Miro: for the record, the rules about FDO desktop file spec apply only to .desktop files that are actually application launchers, by my reading. This file is not an application launcher and is not actually intended to comply with the FDO spec, and 'correcting' it to pass desktop-file-validate actually breaks it. So please don't require that for any future reviews of background packages :) See http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411876
I've asked why it should not pass the check, I have not demanded the desktop file is changed ;) Anyway, here, a followup: http://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/925