https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chat-to-me(a)raveit.de Blocks| |2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me(a)raveit.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 --- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me(a)raveit.de&gt; 2014-12-09 19:46:33 CET --- Ok, package builds fine in rawhide. Must: 1. Licence field have to adjust. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/licensecheck.txt Should: ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-seahorse/configure.ac:27, /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- fileroller/configure.ac:20, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream- unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-dropbox/configure.in:20 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-repairer/configure.ac:10, /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- preview/configure.ac:38, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-image-converter/configure.ac:14, /home/rave /nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- share/configure.in:17, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-python/configure.in:20 AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-seahorse/configure.ac:10, /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- fileroller/configure.ac:9, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-dropbox/configure.in:9, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox /upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-python/configure.in:11 But i think this is a job for upstream and we can ignore it because the package builds fine in rawhide. 2. You should inform upstream about incorrect FSF address, see licencecheck rpmlint: Checking: nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-1.fc22.src.rpm nemo-dropbox.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion nautilus-dropbox obsoletes nautilus-dropbox nemo-dropbox.src: W: strange-permission nemo-extensions-2.4.x.tar.gz 0444L nemo-dropbox.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes nautilus-dropbox nemo-dropbox.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-provides nautilus-dropbox 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Please adjust permission of the tarball. I'm not really shure about self-obsoletion. Maybe this is the result of unversioned-explicit-obsoletes/provides. Anyway you can't use a version for it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 --- Comment #4 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me(a)raveit.de&gt; 2014-12-09 20:52:01 CET --- about rpmlint: self-obsoletion nautilus-dropbox obsoletes nautilus-dropbox The obsoletes from this package doesn't hit the provides from the same place. You should try to use versioned obsoletes/provides to avoid that. Nemo-dropbox has already a higher version than nautilus-dropbox, so this can work imo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 --- Comment #6 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me(a)raveit.de&gt; 2014-12-10 23:43:50 CET --- This obsolete/provides helps but rpmlint complains. I use this one to make rpmlint happy. # file conflicts with dropbox provided package Provides: nautilus-dropbox%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: nautilus-dropbox%{?_isa} < %{version}-%{release} Checking: nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-1.fc22.src.rpm nemo-dropbox.src: W: strange-permission nemo-extensions-2.4.x.tar.gz 0444L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 --- Comment #8 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-12-15 01:56:38 CET --- (In reply to comment #7) Sorry I meant to say a conflict would be better if the functionality doesn't overlap -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 --- Comment #10 from leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-12-15 08:22:11 CET --- (In reply to comment #7) I don't have to consider nautilus-dropbox as it isn't provided by fedora or rpmfusion repo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-12-15 22:22:30 CET --- (In reply to comment #11) Agreed, this may cause some issues if users are using nautilus-dropbox and rpmfusion. If yum see and update and grabs it from rpmfusion instead of dropbox for nautilus, due to the provides line and rpmfusion by default being higher priority repo, then we have a problem. provides/obsoletes should only be used if the package conflicts but ultimately has the same or newer replaced functionality. Dropbox's repo does not mess up rpmfusion or fedora's repo's, so we should do the same to remain as compatible as possible with fedora users. See the following link for a list of repo's we try to be compatible with: http://rpmfusion.org/FedoraThirdPartyRepos -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me(a)raveit.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|3465 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 --- Comment #15 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me(a)raveit.de&gt; 2014-12-18 15:12:09 CET --- APPROVED! Two minors: Please add docs to file-section before uploading, because docs in dropbox are about nautilus-dropbox. You should inform upstream about incorrect FSF address and obsolete auto-tools macros. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [-]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools This is an upstream job, please inform upstream! [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-2.fc22.src.rpm nemo-dropbox.x86_64: W: no-documentation nemo-dropbox.src: W: strange-permission nemo-extensions-2.4.x.tar.gz 0444L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Strange permission should fixed by cvs upload. Please add docs to file-section, because docs in dropbox are about nautilus-dropbox. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@mother /]# rpmlint nemo-dropbox nemo-dropbox.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@mother /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nemo-dropbox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig dropbox libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libnemo-extension.so.1()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- nemo-dropbox: libnemo-dropbox.so()(64bit) nemo-dropbox nemo-dropbox(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- nemo-dropbox: /usr/lib64/nemo/extensions-3.0/libnemo-dropbox.so Source checksums ---------------- http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/nemo-extensions/source/nemo-ext... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a46547592438c5aef46940c314dea4d10bd4f8c746fe758b5430a6a69adf76a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a46547592438c5aef46940c314dea4d10bd4f8c746fe758b5430a6a69adf76a0 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-seahorse/configure.ac:27, /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- fileroller/configure.ac:20, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream- unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-dropbox/configure.in:20 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-repairer/configure.ac:10, /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- preview/configure.ac:38, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-image-converter/configure.ac:14, /home/rave /nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- share/configure.in:17, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-python/configure.in:20 AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-seahorse/configure.ac:10, /home/rave/nemo- dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo- fileroller/configure.ac:9, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0 /nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-dropbox/configure.in:9, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox /upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-python/configure.in:11 This is an upstream job, please inform them! Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -r -n nemo-dropbox -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #16 from leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-12-18 16:12:16 CET --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: nemo-dropbox Short Description: Dropbox extension for nemo file manager Owners: leigh123linux raveit65 Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: nonfree -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #17 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I think someone forgot to mark this as resolved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.