[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-12-05 16:40:52 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- hyperrogue-8.3-2.j.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- hyperrogue-8.3-2.j.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-beb538eef6 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- hyperrogue-8.3-2.j.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-beb538eef6 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/hyperrogue -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
Ben Rosser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #30 from Ben Rosser ---
Good catch with savepng; it seems that licensecheck didn't pick up on that. :(
Anyway, this package is APPROVED.
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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 %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated".
39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1155793-hyperrogue/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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.
[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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[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
hyperrogue-music , hyperrogue-debuginfo
[x]: P
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #29 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Concerning SDL2, I simply don't know. I'm not at all a c/c++ dev :p -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #28 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Hi, I have just noticed the savepng file is under zlib, I added it as a bundled lib, and update the license tag. I have updated the previous link. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #27 from Igor Gnatenko --- is it possible by any chance to port it to SDL2? -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #26 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-8.3-2.j.fc25.src.rpm Hi, thank you very much for taking this review :) I have updated my spec and srpm accordingly to your comment, I didn't notice this bundled libs... I have also updated the appdata.xml with (not so) new open age rating. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|i...@cicku.me |rosser@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) | --- Comment #25 from Ben Rosser --- Taken this review. I ran through the spec and only found one issue: there are bundled copies of mtrand and glew in the sources; from licensecheck: BSD (2 clause) -- hyperrogue-83j/src/glew.c hyperrogue-83j/src/mtrand.h It doesn't seem like glew.c is used in the Linux build. If that's the case you should probably explicitly remove it in %prep (so this can be verified), although this isn't a requirement. But mtrand definitely seems to be, which means you should modify the License tag accordingly to reflect that (License: GPLv2 and BSD) and explain why in a comment. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries you should probably also add a "Provides: bundled(mtrand)" to the spec. Otherwise the package looks good. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rosser@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) --- Comment #24 from Ben Rosser --- As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews, this review seems to be stalled. Are you still interested in reviewing the package, Christopher? If there's no response within a week as per policy I'll take this review and finish it up. :) -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #23 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Just setted up a corp repository for hyperrogue: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nobrakal/hyperrogue/ Feel free to use it to try hyperrogue without any pain ;) -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #22 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-8.3-1.j.fc24.src.rpm Hi Rémi, thank you for your link ! I have updated my package to the 8.3j version, and updated appadata files. I also made the music subpackage noarch (like the data subpackage in mageia) -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Rémi Verschelde changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rversche...@gmail.com --- Comment #21 from Rémi Verschelde --- @nobrakal: I haven't reviewed your SRPM, but in case it could be of help, here is a link to my Mageia SRPM: http://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/mirrors/Mageia/distrib/cauldron/SRPMS/core/release/hyperrogue-7.4h-1.mga6.src.rpm and the corresponding spec file: http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/hyperrogue/current/SPECS/hyperrogue.spec?view=markup You are free to make use of my patches/take inspiration from the spec file if some of it provides improvements on your current work. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 nobra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1364745 (FE-GAMESIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364745 [Bug 1364745] Games SIG tracker bug -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #20 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-7.4-1.h.fc23.src.rpm Updated to new upstream. Now, I force the code relocation with -fPIC. My bigger problem is that upstream removed the COPYING file from the archive... Does this make any problem ? I sent a mail to the maintainer about that to warn him, it can be a mistake. -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #19 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Updated, all will work now, sorry -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #18 from Christopher Meng --- Uh... Please upload your SRPM within stable network, the source RPM doesn't include spec file! -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #17 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-6.6-1.fc22.src.rpm I've updated my spec to fix some typo, and force the use of the -fPIC flag during building. Here is a successful koji scratch build against rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10627187 -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #16 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-6.6-0.fc22.src.rpm I updated to the new upstream (6.6), and created a subpackage for music files, and fix a bug with this music. I used the Suggests option to add hyperrogue-music as a dependency for hyperrogue, because you can play without the music. Also, music subpackage has a different license (CC-BY) of the code (GPLv2), but I don't think it's a problem. Alexandre -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #15 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Updated: Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-5.5-0.3.a.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius --- This package's version does not comply with Fedora's versioning rules. c.f. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #11 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Hi, Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL http://cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue-5.5a-2.fc21.src.rpm I followed your instructions: - Compile with right flag (I think, I'm not at all familiar with that) - Use install instead of cp - Add a test for the appdata file But I don't understand what's wrong with the license text: What I have to do ? The COPYING file name isn't satisfactory? Or I have to include it in %license tag ? But https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package said: "These prefixes are not valid in Fedora: %license and %readme. " Thank you again for your help, Alexandre -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
= 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:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
hyperrogue-55/hyper.cpp
Unknown or generated
hyperrogue-55/achievement.cpp
hyperrogue-55/achievement.h
hyperrogue-55/cell.cpp
hyperrogue-55/classes.cpp
hyperrogue-55/game.cpp
hyperrogue-55/geometry.cpp
hyperrogue-55/graph.cpp
hyperrogue-55/heptagon.cpp
hyperrogue-55/hyperpoint.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language-cz.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language-pl.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language-tr.cpp
hyperrogue-55/language.cpp
hyperrogue-55/polygons.cpp
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[!]: %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.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[!]: 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]: 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.
= 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
--- Comment #9 from nobra...@gmail.com ---
Hi,
I've updated my package.
http://cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue-5.5a-1.fc21.src.rpm
http://cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue.spec
And, great news, I can patch the source code (well, it's not very beautiful,
but it works) to have the binary in %{_bindir}.
Thank you for your help :)
Alexandre
--
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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng --- Would you please update this to the latest 5.5a version? BTW I've bought and played this on Steam for several hours, it's an addictive puzzle game. ;) -- 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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
--- Comment #7 from nobra...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec
SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-4.4-4.fc21.src.rpm
Hi,
Thank you for your help :)
1. "If linker works well, no need to explicitly Requires SDL_mixer SDL_ttf
SDL_gfx."
You're right, linker works very well. I fix it
2. "Arr... rogue-like or roguelike exactly?"
At the begining, I've wrote "roguelike", but it generates this rpmlint warning:
spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, Rogelio
So, I changed it to "rogue-like", but English is not my native language... It
really changes the meaning ?
3. "Although install target is unavailable, yours is not good.
These files should be put into %{_datadir}."
As I explained it in the first comment, the arch-dependent binairie need to be
in the same directory as the font file. And put the executable it in
%{_datadir} generates this rpmlint warning:
arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/hyperrogue/hyperrogue
As suggested Rahul Sundaram, I change %{_datadir} to %{_libdir}
Alexandre
--
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 1155793] Review Request: hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||i...@cicku.me
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me
Summary|Review Request: Hyperrogue |Review Request: hyperrogue
|- An SDL roguelike in a |- An SDL roguelike in a
|non-euclidean world |non-euclidean world
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng ---
Hi,
I just went through your spec and found some problems you have to fix.
1.
BuildRequires: SDL_mixer-devel SDL_ttf-devel SDL_gfx-devel
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
Requires: SDL_mixer SDL_ttf SDL_gfx
If linker works well, no need to explicitly Requires SDL_mixer SDL_ttf SDL_gfx.
2. Summary:An SDL rogue-like in a non-euclidean world
Arr... rogue-like or roguelike exactly?
3. # Upstream no provides the install target. I have to install files "by
hand".
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}
cp -p hyper %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}/hyperrogue
cp -p *ogg %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}/
cp -p VeraBd.ttf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}/
Although install target is unavailable, yours is not good.
These files should be put into %{_datadir}.
--
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 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #5 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Hi, I moved the Spec and the SRPM to fedorapeople.org Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/hyperrogue-4.4-3.fc21.src.rpm I also ran a scratch build in rawhide, and hyperrogue builded sucessfully in all architectures. results here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8151067 -- 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 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #4 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue.spec SRPM URL: cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue-4.4-3.fc21.src.rpm Hi, Thank you again for your response! I reported the font bug to upstream. I quote him "Thanks for the report about VeraBd.ttf, not serious enough to release a new version for this, I am also a bit afraid to touch this, because it could break the patch which is used by the Debian package. It can be easily circumvented by either patching the source or by using a script which sets the current directory correctly." It provided a wider icon and 2 screenshots in 16/9, so I added an hypperrogue.appdata.xml file. Results of fedora-review on the srpm: All items passed -- 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 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram --- right, just write the appdata, include it in source, install it in the appropriate location and you are done. example, http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnome-photos.git/tree/gnome-photos.spec If you don.t have a high resolution icon, ask upstream to provide one for you. Also try running fedora-review against your srpm. -- 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 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
--- Comment #2 from nobra...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue.spec
SRPM URL: cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue-4.4-2.fc21.src.rpm
Hi,
Thank you very much for your review :)
I will report the font problem shortly.
Comment displaced.
%{_libdir} used in place of %{_datadir}.
For desktop file, guidelines says "one MUST run desktop-file-install (in
%install) OR desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install) ". I believe that
desktop-file-validate is not necessary here, because I use
desktop-file-install.
I've got a problem with the appdata: The only icon size 96*96 px...
And, a last idiot question: I will just write the hyperrogue.appadata.xml, put
it as a source in the spec, and install it in %{_datadir}/appdata/ ?
Thank you again,
Alexandre
--
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 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Rahul Sundaram changed: What|Removed |Added CC||methe...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram --- You should report the font problem upstream. The comment on licensing should be just above the license tag and not near files. Please fix the location of files. If they are arch dependent, they should go into /usr/lib or /usr/lib64. Use the appropriate rpm macro for that https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros You should validate the desktop file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files You should include appdata and make sure to include screenshots and an appropriate icon with high resolution as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Guidelines/Applications_and_Launchers I also recommend running fedora-review against your srpm -- 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
