[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1305390




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305390
[Bug 1305390] Review Request: dreamchess-tools - DreamChess Tools
-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1141506 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141506
[Bug 1141506] [abrt] mock: subprocess.py:1327:_execute_child:OSError:
[Errno 2] No such file or directory
-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc20 |dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc21



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc20
 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc21

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc20

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE



-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2014-09-17 15:21:40



--- Comment #16 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Pushed to rawhide.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: dreamchess
Short Description: Portable, open-source and 3D chess game 
Upstream URL: http://www.dreamchess.org/
Owners: raphgro
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC: lupinix

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1141506



--- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
fedora-review fails, due to a mock bug #1141506.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141506
[Bug 1141506] [abrt] mock: subprocess.py:1327:_execute_child:OSError:
[Errno 2] No such file or directory
-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #7 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Maybe I explained dependency with specific version in anambiguous way, 

[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dreamchess-
 data
== Please fix this, Requires:  %{name}-%{version} instead of %{name}

should be Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Sorry for any inconvenience!

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/dreamchess/dreamchess.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/dreamchess/dreamchess-0.2.1-3.RC1.fc20.src.rpm

Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7576019

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #9 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the fixes :) There is one last thing missing: You have to add some
information about the different licensed files in your spec.

Christian


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or
 generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/review/1140403-dreamchess/licensecheck.txt

== Checked and analyzed with Raphael, is ok

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
 be documented in the spec.

== Please document this in spec (you can use COPYRIGHT file das a base)

[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.
[-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 8 files.
[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]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
 file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dreamchess-
 engine , dreamchess-data

== Is ok as data contains only noarch and the engine part is independent

[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is 

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #10 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Wait, there is another big issue. I found that files contained in data-package
in /usr/share are also part of the main package = conflict!

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/dreamchess/dreamchess.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/dreamchess/dreamchess-0.2.1-4.RC1.fc20.src.rpm

Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7576363


(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #9)
 [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
 be documented in the spec.

 == Please document this in spec (you can use COPYRIGHT file das a base)
done.

(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #10)
 Wait, there is another big issue. I found that files contained in
 data-package in /usr/share are also part of the main package = conflict!
done. Hint: use %dir


Still in doubt about a correct licence model. Did you notice the folder
src/doc/ with various licence texts inside? Though, I can not detect where
those texts should exactly belong 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Small additional rework done to folders ownership without touching release tag.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #13 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Approved! License stuff seem to be fine now and the package looks and works
fine :) I already played a game and lost against the engine...

Christian


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or
 generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/review/1140403-dreamchess/licensecheck.txt

== We checked this, see reviews before

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 8 files.
[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]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
 file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dreamchess-
  

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Christan, thanks for your review. All found issues are fixed.

Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/dreamchess/dreamchess.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/dreamchess/dreamchess-0.2.1-2.RC1.fc20.src.rpm

Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7575357


(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #4)
 Issues:
 ===
 - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
   Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
 
 == You can remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT for current Fedora releases (but
 required for EPEL5)
done.

 [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
  BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or
  generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck
  in /home/review/1140403-dreamchess/licensecheck.txt
 
 == Please check this, licensecheck.txt is below, but BSD license is also
 mentioned in COPYRIGHT file
done.

 [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
  Note: No known owner of /usr/share/dreamchess
 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dreamchess
 
 == Please check this
done.

 [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
 
 == You are packaging RC1, not the final version! Please add this
 information in release tag
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
done.

 [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 dreamchess-
  data
 == Please fix this, Requires:  %{name}-%{version} instead of %{name}
done.

 [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
  Note: %define requiring justification: %define _suffix -RC1, %define
  _engine dreamer
 == Please adjust this when fixing spec
done.

 licensecheck.txt
 …
 Unknown or generated
 
 dreamchess-0.2.1-RC1/src/dreamer/pgn_scanner.c
Cause the corresponding header is licensed properly, assume this file admits
it.

 dreamchess-0.2.1-RC1/src/include/git_rev.h
Could be ignored for licensing cause it gives only a checkout revision.

 dreamchess-0.2.1-RC1/src/macosx/makeapp.pl
MacOS? Perl? Not needed build script. Ignored.

 dreamchess-0.2.1-RC1/src/pgn_scanner.c
Cause the corresponding header is licensed properly, assume this file admits
it.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403

Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||chrisder...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chrisder...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Taken :)

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
From the homepage:
A moderately strong chess engine is included: Dreamer. However, should this
engine be too weak for you, then you can use any other XBoard-compatible chess
engine, including the popular Crafty and GNU Chess.

Cause of that I am thinking about moving dreamer binary and manpage into
separate subpackage(s). An user could use dreamchess with GNU chess only.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
First review done. There are some things to fix, have a look at the review
below ;) 

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

== You can remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT for current Fedora releases (but
required for EPEL5)


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or
 generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/review/1140403-dreamchess/licensecheck.txt

== Please check this, licensecheck.txt is below, but BSD license is also
mentioned in COPYRIGHT file

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/dreamchess
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dreamchess

== Please check this

[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 5 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

== You are packaging RC1, not the final version! Please add this information
in release tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning

[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]: 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]: 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
 file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[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]: Final provides and 

[Bug 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7565869

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review