[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-19 00:51:37 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 -- 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da -- 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liblcf -- 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #5 from Andy Mender --- > The README isn't very useful, in my opinion, so I left it out. Instead I > added a -doc sub-package containing Doxygen-generated documentation. Awesome! Re-ran all checks. All lights are green. 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://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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #4 from Artur Iwicki --- > liblcf.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) Looks like a false-positive to me; line 9 was a comment. >The main source dir contains a README.md file. I would include it in both the >main and -devel subpackage with the %doc macro. The README isn't very useful, in my opinion, so I left it out. Instead I added a -doc sub-package containing Doxygen-generated documentation. Updated links: spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/liblcf-0.6.2-3/liblcf.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/liblcf-0.6.2-3/liblcf-0.6.2-3.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48453853 -- 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305
--- Comment #3 from Andy Mender ---
> On one hand, yes, it could be named "easyrpg-liblcf" as it's closely related
> to that project. On the other hand, well, it's a library and can be used by
> other projects, so I'm not sure if "hiding" it behind the "easyrpg-" prefix
> makes sense.
I agree it makes more sense to leave it as "liblcf" if it's not strictly tied
to the rest of the easyrpg packages.
> Oh, thanks. I took a better look and src/ini.{cpp,h} are actually a bundled
> library, "inih" (already packaged in Fedora). src/inireader.{cpp,h} are part
> of "example code" for that library. I un-bundled inih and added a comment
> explaining the licensing.
Nice!
> The last line is a file, not a directory. Added a file extension to make that
> more clear.
My bad then. The asterisk at the end confused me a bit.
> I took a better look at upstream's CMakeLists.txt and noticed that they
> auto-launch "update-mime-database" during install, and that's what generates
> those files. Disabled this.
Can confirm they're gone. Great!
I re-ran fedora-review and things look almost perfect now. However, I see
rpmlint picked up a couple more things I missed last time:
Rpmlint
---
Checking: liblcf-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
liblcf-devel-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
liblcf-debuginfo-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
liblcf-debugsource-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
liblcf-0.6.2-2.fc33.src.rpm
liblcf.x86_64: W: no-documentation
liblcf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
liblcf.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) #
not sure where this comes from, since the SPEC file looks okay space/tab wise.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
The main source dir contains a README.md file. I would include it in both the
main and -devel subpackage with the %doc macro.
--
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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305
--- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki ---
>I see this package is related to the easyrpg project. Would it make sense to
>rename it to "easyrpg-liblcf"?
On one hand, yes, it could be named "easyrpg-liblcf" as it's closely related to
that project. On the other hand, well, it's a library and can be used by other
projects, so I'm not sure if "hiding" it behind the "easyrpg-" prefix makes
sense.
>licensecheck reports the following as BSD-licensed:
>liblcf-0.6.2/src/ini.cpp: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
>liblcf-0.6.2/src/ini.h: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
>liblcf-0.6.2/src/inireader.cpp: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
>liblcf-0.6.2/src/inireader.h: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
>
>The License block should probably say "BSD and MIT" and in a comment above you
>can mention that src/ini.* and src/inireader.* files are BSD-licensed, since
>they're in minority.
Oh, thanks. I took a better look and src/ini.{cpp,h} are actually a bundled
library, "inih" (already packaged in Fedora). src/inireader.{cpp,h} are part of
"example code" for that library. I un-bundled inih and added a comment
explaining the licensing.
>> %{_datadir}/mime/packages/%{name}*
>The last line should say "%{_datadir}/mime/packages/%{name}/" if the package
>is supposed to own that directory.
The last line is a file, not a directory. Added a file extension to make that
more clear.
>> %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/*
>Should the package own the "%{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/" dir? If so, remove the
>trailing asterisk.
Good catch.
>Also, rpmlint reports the following files as not associated with the package,
>yet installed:
> /usr/share/mime/[...a lot of stuff here...]
I took a better look at upstream's CMakeLists.txt and noticed that they
auto-launch "update-mime-database" during install, and that's what generates
those files. Disabled this.
Updated links:
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/liblcf-0.6.2-2/liblcf.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/liblcf-0.6.2-2/liblcf-0.6.2-2.fc32.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48382343
--
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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
I see this package is related to the easyrpg project. Would it make sense to
rename it to "easyrpg-liblcf"? This might require some path trickery, though,
because then %{name} would resolve to something else than the current paths
expect.
> License: MIT
licensecheck reports the following as BSD-licensed:
liblcf-0.6.2/src/ini.cpp: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
liblcf-0.6.2/src/ini.h: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
liblcf-0.6.2/src/inireader.cpp: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
liblcf-0.6.2/src/inireader.h: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
The License block should probably say "BSD and MIT" and in a comment above you
can mention that src/ini.* and src/inireader.* files are BSD-licensed, since
they're in minority.
> BuildRequires: cmake
> BuildRequires: expat-devel
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
The expat-devel package provides a pkgconfig config, so you can specify it with
"pkgconfig(expat)". Not the case for libicu-devel apparently.
> %files
> %license COPYING
> %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.*
> %{_datadir}/mime/packages/%{name}*
The last line should say "%{_datadir}/mime/packages/%{name}/" if the package is
supposed to own that directory.
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/%{name}/
> %{_libdir}/%{name}.so
> %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/*
Should the package own the "%{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/" dir? If so, remove the
trailing asterisk.
Also, rpmlint reports the following files as not associated with the package,
yet installed:
/usr/share/mime/XMLnamespaces
/usr/share/mime/aliases
/usr/share/mime/application/x-ldb.xml
/usr/share/mime/application/x-lmt.xml
/usr/share/mime/application/x-lmu.xml
/usr/share/mime/application/x-lsd.xml
/usr/share/mime/generic-icons
/usr/share/mime/globs
/usr/share/mime/globs2
/usr/share/mime/icons
/usr/share/mime/magic
/usr/share/mime/mime.cache
/usr/share/mime/subclasses
/usr/share/mime/treemagic
/usr/share/mime/types
/usr/share/mime/version
Full review matrix:
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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF All
Permissive License". 177 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/liblcf/liblcf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/liblcf
Review: mentioned in an earlier comment
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/liblcf,
/usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/mime
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 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
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Artur Iwicki changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1862306 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862306 [Bug 1862306] Review Request: easyrpg-player - Game interpreter for RPG Maker 2000/2003 and EasyRPG games -- 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
