Bug 237813
Summary: | Review Request: taxipilot - Game where you pilot a taxi in space | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Hans de Goede <hdegoede> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Karol Trzcionka <karlikt> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | karlikt:
fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-05-10 20:42:51 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Hans de Goede
2007-04-25 15:07:05 UTC
Good: + Naming seems good. + License seems ok. + Local Build works fine. + Rpmlint is quite on source rpm. + Local install and uninstall works fine. + Could start game. + Mock build works fine. Bad: - Rpmlint complaints binary package: rpmlint taxipilot-0.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm W: taxipilot dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common W: taxipilot symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag - Package doesn't conatins varbatin copy ot the license text. Upstream tar bar contains file COPYING which should be in the %doc stanza. - Rpmlint complaints the installed package: rpmlint taxipilot W: taxipilot dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common W: taxipilot symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 _ZN4Arts7Factory7startupEv W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 _ZN4Arts7Factory8shutdownEv W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 _ZTIN4Arts7FactoryE W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 _ZTv0_n24_N4Arts11Object_skel6notifyERKNS_12NotificationE W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 _ZTv0_n40_N4Arts11Object_skel5_skelEv W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 _ZN4Arts11Object_base5_stubEv === CUT === for the undefined-non-week-symbol issue, please notify the upstream to fix it. There are a lot of such messages from rpmlint. - Source0 Tag in SPEC file doesn't show to the upstram tar ball. A HTTP-Code 404 occured. - Could not build package for target i686 on the x86_64 system: checking for perl... /usr/bin/perl checking for Qt... configure: error: Qt (>= Qt 3.1 (20021021)) (library qt-mt) not found. Please check your installation! For more details about this problem, look at the end of config.log. Make sure that you have compiled Qt with thread support! Fehler: Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.75137 (%build) BTW: Becouse I'm on vacation in the next way, I don't assign the review to me. (In reply to comment #1) > Bad: > - Rpmlint complaints binary package: > rpmlint taxipilot-0.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm > W: taxipilot dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common > W: taxipilot symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common This is standard for KDE packages and can be ignored > E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag This file is needed and must stay > - Package doesn't conatins varbatin copy ot the license text. Upstream tar bar > contains file COPYING which should be in the %doc stanza. Oops, fixed > - Rpmlint complaints the installed package: > rpmlint taxipilot > W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 > _ZN4Arts7Factory7startupEv > W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 > _ZN4Arts7Factory8shutdownEv > W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 > _ZTIN4Arts7FactoryE > W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 > _ZTv0_n24_N4Arts11Object_skel6notifyERKNS_12NotificationE > W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 > _ZTv0_n40_N4Arts11Object_skel5_skelEv > W: taxipilot undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libEXT_wavpo.so.0.0.0 > _ZN4Arts11Object_base5_stubEv > === CUT === Fixed > for the undefined-non-week-symbol issue, please notify the upstream to fix it. > There are a lot of such messages from rpmlint. > - Source0 Tag in SPEC file doesn't show to the upstram tar ball. A HTTP-Code 404 > occured. Typo, fixed > - Could not build package for target i686 on the x86_64 system: > checking for perl... /usr/bin/perl > checking for Qt... configure: error: Qt (>= Qt 3.1 (20021021)) (library qt-mt) > not found. Please check your installation! > For more details about this problem, look at the end of config.log. > Make sure that you have compiled Qt with thread support! > Fehler: Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.75137 (%build) > You mean trying to build an i386 version on x86_64 without using mock? Thats not supported and won't work for many packages. New version here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/taxipilot.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/taxipilot-0.9.1-2.fc7.src.rpm 1. rpmlint returns [paczka@localhost ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/result W: taxipilot dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common W: taxipilot symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag 2. "Data files (maps, pixmaps, sounds) go in %{_datadir}/%{name} , not %{_datadir}/games/%{name} . According to the FHS, the use of /usr/share/games is optional, and we recommend not using it for consistency so that games are packaged like all other applications." In the rpm, datafiles are in /usr/share/apps. Please check it. 3. "Installed .desktop files MUST follow the [desktop-entry-spec], paying particular attention to validating correct usage of Name, GenericName, [Categories], [StartupNotify] entries." In .desktop is not defined GenericName and the shortcut is after installation in Games without any category, check it. 4. "- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec." There is %{_libdir}/libEXT_wavpo.la 5. Add NEWS to %doc, please. I did not check all require items, but these should be checked/fixed. (In reply to comment #3) > 1. rpmlint returns > [paczka@localhost ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/result > W: taxipilot dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common > W: taxipilot symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common > E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag > As already expained in comments above, the dangling symlink warning is normal for KDE packages, the directory the link points to is provided by kdelibs > 2. "Data files (maps, pixmaps, sounds) go in %{_datadir}/%{name} , not > %{_datadir}/games/%{name} . According to the FHS, the use of /usr/share/games is > optional, and we recommend not using it for consistency so that games are > packaged like all other applications." > In the rpm, datafiles are in /usr/share/apps. Please check it. > Again, this is a KDE app, all kde apps have their data under %{_datadir}/apps/%{name} > 3. "Installed .desktop files MUST follow the [desktop-entry-spec], paying > particular attention to validating correct usage of Name, GenericName, > [Categories], [StartupNotify] entries." > In .desktop is not defined GenericName and the shortcut is after installation in > Games without any category, check it. > GenericName use is optional and doesn't make any sense for Games. The game ends up in the Games menu and not in a submenu, because non of the default KDE Games menu submenus make sense for it. If you install the games-menus package you will get more submenus under KDE and submenus under Games and then it will go under the "Action Games" submenu (best match) > 4. "- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be > removed in the spec." > There is %{_libdir}/libEXT_wavpo.la > <sigh> There is a comment about this in the spec file: # .la file is included deliberately -> kde KDE needs .la files in certain cases. > 5. Add NEWS to %doc, please. > NEWS doesn't have any (relevant) content. MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. W: taxipilot dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common W: taxipilot symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/taxipilot/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag It can be ignored, but if taxipilot works without game_data_tag, you should delete it before finally release. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. + Package licensed under GPLv2 MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. + included MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. + md5sum: c8f5b5a7ca6ea0b3f42ecdef1620f7cb MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. + I check it under mock, fedora-devel-i386.core.cfg, and it built correct MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc N/A MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. I think the BRs are correct, because it built under mock and the package works after installation. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. + MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. + MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) N/A MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. + MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. It works without .la files and I can't see any good reason to avoid deleting that file. MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. + Before approve, please write any good reason for avoid deleting the libtool archives form package and check working without game_data_tag. I forgot to assign review request to me (In reply to comment #5) Thanks for the review! > Before approve, please write any good reason for avoid deleting the libtool > archives form package As already explained in both the specfile and a comment, .la files should not be deleted from kde-libraries, for example see the output of: rpm -ql kdelibs | grep '\.la' Also see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 Which explicitly mentions an exception for kde packaghes. and check working without game_data_tag. Quoting myself from comment #2: > E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag This file is needed and must stay (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > Thanks for the review! > > > Before approve, please write any good reason for avoid deleting the libtool > > archives form package > > As already explained in both the specfile and a comment, .la files should not be > deleted from kde-libraries, for example see the output of: > rpm -ql kdelibs | grep '\.la' > Also see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 > Which explicitly mentions an exception for kde packaghes. So I quote: [Comment from mschwendt: It is not that easy, unfortunately, to kill libtool dependency bloat this way. Some software needs libtool archives at ***RUN-TIME*** because it uses an old libltdl to dlopen DSOs or uses a broken libltdl (like KDE bug #93359).] If it doesn't need .la at run-time (works OK), it can be IMHO removed. If you think that the .la files are needed for working, Guidelines can be ignored. + > and check working without game_data_tag. > Quoting myself from comment #2: > > E: taxipilot zero-length /usr/share/apps/taxipilot/game_data/game_data_tag > This file is needed and must stay Ops, I overlooked it. Sorry :) + APPROVED Thanks, I'll try to review widelands ASAP. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: taxipilot Short Description: Game where you pilot a taxi in space Owners: j.w.r.degoede Branches: FC-6 devel InitialCC: <empty> cvs done Imported and build, closing. |