Bug 238562
Summary: | Review Request: machineball - A futuristic ball game with simple rules | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Hans de Goede <hdegoede> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michał Bentkowski <mr.ecik> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | mr.ecik:
fedora-review+
wtogami: 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: | 2007-05-12 08:51:17 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
2007-05-01 14:00:25 UTC
Missing call to update-desktop-database in %post and %postun. Missing Requires(post), Requires(postun) on desktop-file-utils Doesn't build in mock: g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -c -o intro.o intro.cpp intro.cpp:13:20: error: GL/glu.h: No such file or directory make: *** [intro.o] Error 1 (In reply to comment #1) > Missing Requires(post), Requires(postun) on desktop-file-utils Someone reminded me today that this is deprecated, so never mind on this one. (In reply to comment #1) > Missing call to update-desktop-database in %post and %postun. According to ScripletSnippets we only need update-desktop-database only if a desktop entry has a MimeType key. This package's desktop file doesn't have a MimeType so we don't need update-... at all :) > Doesn't build in mock: BuildRequires: mesa-libGLU-devel fixes this issue. Package seems quite interesting so I'm probably going to review it. However, feel free to take it as long as it's not assigned to me. (In reply to comment #3) > > Doesn't build in mock: > > BuildRequires: mesa-libGLU-devel fixes this issue. > > Package seems quite interesting so I'm probably going to review it. However, > feel free to take it as long as it's not assigned to me. Thanks, I'll at that BR together with any other necessary changes once a full review is done, if you want a new version with the BR added before starting the review let me know. Sorry that you had to wait a long time. I'll make a full review within 24 hours. REVIEW: * rpmlint is quiet !* missing BR: mesa-libGLU-devel * licensed under GPL license and its text's included * required %post(un) supplied * dist tag present !* no macros in Source0 tag * buildroot's fine * package doesn't create any new directories * proper permissions of all files * desktop file seems fine * %clean section is fine * source's md5sum is good, but !* curiously enough, its name is different than the offical one. Adding %{version} tag should fix that problem THINGS TO DO: - add missing BR: mesa-libGLU-devel - add at least %{version} to Source0 tag - upload proper source code file to srpm (current one has a wrong name) The last issue forces change of versioning. Probably you can just replace "-" with ".", but if aby other (better) ideas are very welcome. (In reply to comment #6) > The last issue forces change of versioning. Probably you can just replace "-" > with ".", but if aby other (better) ideas are very welcome. I should have written "but any other (better) ideas are very welcome" ;) (In reply to comment #6) > THINGS TO DO: > - add missing BR: mesa-libGLU-devel Done > - add at least %{version} to Source0 tag > - upload proper source code file to srpm (current one has a wrong name) Source0 url fixed and changed to use %{name} and %{version}. I started this packaged based on a srpm send to me by someone who had read on my wikipage that I was interested on this, he renamed the tarbal (and I didn't check). > The last issue forces change of versioning. Probably you can just replace "-" > with ".", but if aby other (better) ideas are very welcome. The fix is easy, the real version is 1.0, the added -1 in the src tarbal is because upstream uses binary rpms as their primary distribution method, and they don't know what the release field is for, so they add it to their source tarbals too. I've seen this confused behaviour by other upstreams too, for example with blobwars. New version with all this fixed here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/machineball.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/machineball-1.0-2.fc7.src.rpm (In reply to comment #8) > The fix is easy, the real version is 1.0, the added -1 in the src tarbal (...) Right. The easiest solutions are the best ones ;) I like the package now and nothing stands in the way to approve it. The game looks quite nice, but it's a pity that there's no AI mode ;) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: machineball Short Description: A futuristic ball game with simple rules Owners: j.w.r.degoede Branches: FC-6 devel InitialCC: <empty> Thanks for the review! Imported and build, closing. |