Bug 1185163

*** Bug 783016 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Hi, I think it's quite good already, just a few comments and clarifying questions, maybe just doubts from my side:
1) I can see the pilas.desktop is in the Ubuntu directory only and you use it as a separate source. Could you use an english description instead of spanish inside?
2) The pilas-icono.png doesn't work for me (corrupt file in the SRPM?) and it is in utils/
Is there any reason why you don't use it?
3) I can see there is at least an html manual in data/ for pilasengine, but you don't have it in the %files section. Do you want to add it or leave it away because it's a GUI application?

The rest looks good to me, here is my review.

Package Review
==============

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


===== MUST items =====

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:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 333 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/robyduck/1185163-pilas/licensecheck.

This is ok.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
     file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pilas-0.90.17-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          pilas-0.90.17-1.fc21.src.rpm
pilas.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) videogames -> video games, video-games, videotapes
pilas.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pilasengine
pilas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) videogames -> video games, video-games, videotapes
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpmlint pilas
pilas.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) videogames -> video games, video-games, videotapes
pilas.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pilasengine
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'


Requires
--------
pilas (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    PyQt4
    pybox2d
    pygame
    python(abi)

Provides
--------
pilas:
    application()
    application(pilas.desktop)
    pilas

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/hugoruscitti/pilas/archive/27d030357410ebeb0da38232f3ebe3f3d5ebc5e2/pilas-27d030357410ebeb0da38232f3ebe3f3d5ebc5e2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fd66388d70d4f9b50cbbc757e48cd79dd7108a404e37ef417e61e5a9f5ed3beb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fd66388d70d4f9b50cbbc757e48cd79dd7108a404e37ef417e61e5a9f5ed3beb


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1185163
Buildroot used: fedora-21-i386
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

(In reply to Robert Mayr from comment #2)
> Hi, I think it's quite good already, just a few comments and clarifying
> questions, maybe just doubts from my side:
> 1) I can see the pilas.desktop is in the Ubuntu directory only and you use
> it as a separate source. Could you use an english description instead of
> spanish inside?
I remove debian directory in %prep, because it is unusable by fedora (it is the debian package) , so, I use as SourceX this files because them are not installed by default for the setup.py. Anyways I can talk with upstream for add them in MANIFEST.in in a next version. 
Yeah, sure. I can add an english description in SCM at least you require in the review. 
> 2) The pilas-icono.png doesn't work for me (corrupt file in the SRPM?) and
> it is in utils/
Yeah, Is this now. I can use this now https://github.com/hugoruscitti/pilas/commit/f8066ade6ddf6adbc42dd709621a73fa1a21c024
> Is there any reason why you don't use it?
> 3) I can see there is at least an html manual in data/ for pilasengine, but
> you don't have it in the %files section. Do you want to add it or leave it
> away because it's a GUI application?
> 
Correct. it is a GUI application and it is not needed manual pages. usually man pages does make sense for a cli tools
> The rest looks good to me, here is my review.

Yeah, thanks.
Not necessary to do another review, you can for sure add this in the SCM because the package itself has no problems (these are minor fixes).
Approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: pilas
Short Description: Engine to perform quickly and easily videogames
Upstream URL: https://github.com/hugoruscitti/pilas
Owners: echevemaster
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).