[Bug 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2015-07-14 11:47:50 |2015-10-31 22:38:21



-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update gball'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e35b198da0

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-afbbcc162e

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d8e7ab3de3

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-90bb10847b

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d8e7ab3de3

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-afbbcc162e

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
gball-1.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e35b198da0

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||gball-1.1-3.fc22
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-07-14 11:47:50



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing 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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gball-1.1-3.fc22

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #8 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6)
  Group:  Amusements/Games
 Remove this line, it's deprecated since F17.
Removed.

  Requires(post): info
  Requires(preun): info
 What's this for? Your info file should not harm if there's no info installed
 in the system, what I guess does not happen to often in practical usage. I
 do not know what install-info does special, maybe just copy the file in the
 right folder and reference in files section. Better remove those lines with
 Requires.
I understand install-info is just keeping things tidy, exactly as you said. I
added these according to the scriplets in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets. If it is not
mandatory I can remove it though.

  URL:
  http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects
  Source0:
  http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
 Maybe better:
 URL:  http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects
 Source0:  %{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Fixed

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #10 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1-2.fc21.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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #14 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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #15 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13)
 Forget about it. But could you do another review?
 Trojita (E-Mail client based on Qt), if you may like: bug #1208582.

I would be happy to. Though I should say this will be my very first review, so
I will probably ask more questions during the review if that is okay?

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #11 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
What should I do regarding the review swap? I see your bug (#1215762) is
already assigned?

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #9 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7)
 APPROVED
 
Thank you very much :)

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com |
   |/show_bug.cgi?id=1215762|



-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #12 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: gball
Short Description: The Console Ball and Racket Game
Upstream URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects
Owners: mohammedisam
Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



--- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
(In reply to Mohammed Isam from comment #11)
 What should I do regarding the review swap? I see your bug (#1215762) is
 already assigned?

Forget about it. But could you do another review?
Trojita (E-Mail client based on Qt), if you may like: bug #1208582.

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
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]: 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 (v3 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder
 /fedora-review/1173846-gball/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
 package has .info files.
 Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gball
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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 

[Bug 1173846] Review Request: gball - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms
Summary|Review Request: GBall - The |Review Request: gball - The
   |Console Ball and Racket |Console Ball and Racket
   |Game|Game
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

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

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms
   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1215762



--- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Review swap with py4j (bug #1215762)?

Some informal hints to the spec file:

 Group:Amusements/Games
Remove this line, it's deprecated since F17.

 Requires(post): info
 Requires(preun): info
What's this for? Your info file should not harm if there's no info installed in
the system, what I guess does not happen to often in practical usage. I do not
know what install-info does special, maybe just copy the file in the right
folder and reference in files section. Better remove those lines with Requires.

 URL:  http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects
 Source0:  
 http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Maybe better:
URL:http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects
Source0:%{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Please tell if you will fix the above issues, those are just SHOULD. Later I
can do the official fedora-review run.

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #5 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1-1.fc21.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 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #4 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #2)
  Requires
 libgnudos.so.1()(64bit)
 
  Requires:   gnudos
 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

I understand there is no need to explicitly specify the Requires, am I correct?
I removed the Requires clause from the 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 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #3 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com ---
(In reply to Sinny Kumari from comment #1)
 This is unofficial package review -

Thanks :)

 * Use %make_install macro instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Fixed

 * %license macro should be used to include License 
Fixed

 Rpmlint
 ---
 Checking: gball-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
   gball-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
 gball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore - high
 score, high-score, highs core
 gball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore - high score,
 high-score, highs core
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Fixed

-- 
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 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846

Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ksi...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
This is unofficial package review -

Issues
--
* Use %make_install macro instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section

* %license macro should be used to include License 
%license COPYING

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


Result of fedora-review tool output looks good and pasted below for reference.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[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 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]: 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:
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: gball-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
  gball-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
gball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore - high score,
high-score, highs core
gball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore - high score,
high-score, highs core
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)

Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires

gball (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
gnudos
info
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgnudos.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides

gball:
gball
gball(x86-64)



Source checksums

http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n gball
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always 

[Bug 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846



--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) 
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
 Requires
libgnudos.so.1()(64bit)

 Requires:   gnudos

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

-- 
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