[Bug 1676999] Review Request: rogue - The original graphical adventure game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-06-26 12:41:59 --- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga --- Package is in repo -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1676999] Review Request: rogue - The original graphical adventure game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1676999] Review Request: rogue - The original graphical adventure game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999 --- Comment #3 from Wart --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) [...] > - I don't get why this would be needed: > > Requires(post): coreutils > Requires(post): desktop-file-utils > Requires(postun): coreutils > Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils These aren't needed. They are leftovers from earlier versions of Fedora. I've removed them in the files below. New spec file and src rpm with the requested changes applied: Spec Name or Url: http://www2.kobold.org:88/~wart/fedora/rogue.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www2.kobold.org:88/~wart/fedora/rogue-5.4.5-27.fc29.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1676999] Review Request: rogue - The original graphical adventure game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
export LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}"
→ Use %set_build_flags
- make %{_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install
- Use:
Source0:
https://github.com/phs/rogue/archive/v5.4.4/%{name}-5.4.4.tar.gz
- I don't get why this would be needed:
Requires(post): coreutils
Requires(post): desktop-file-utils
Requires(postun): coreutils
Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[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 "Simplified" License", "Expat License", "Unknown
or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 49 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rogue/review-rogue/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 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: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages must not sto
[Bug 1676999] Review Request: rogue - The original graphical adventure game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999 --- Comment #1 from Wart --- I am resubmitting rogue as it was retired a few months ago. The original upstream source has vanished (domain no longer exists), but I found that someone had made a copy of an earlier version on github. This package is based on these mirrored sources, with patches updated appropriately. I also included a patch to fix the ncurses build error, as well as the missing setgroups() call. rpmlint reports the following: rogue.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/rogue games 2755 rogue.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rogue 2755 rogue.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/roguelike 775 rogue.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/roguelike/rogue54.scr The odd permissions are used to enable a scoreboard file shared among all users. A zero-length scoreboard file is installed initially to avoid scoreboard creation errors. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
