Bug 502065 (slashem)
Summary: | Review Request: slashem - Super Lotsa Added Stuff Hack - Extended Magic | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Iain Arnell <iarnell> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jerry James <loganjerry> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, loganjerry, maurizio.antillon, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | loganjerry:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://slashem.sourceforge.net/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc11 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-07-22 21:51:20 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 505613 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Iain Arnell
2009-05-21 17:31:42 UTC
Ooh, I've wasted hours of my life on rogue and nethack. I'll take this review. rpmlint output: slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/record slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/slashem 0775 slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/games/slashem/slashem 02755 slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/perm slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/logfile slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/slashem/save 0775 slashem.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post ln slashem.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings. The zero-length files are okay, because they will become nonzero as people play the game, and they are all marked %config(noreplace). The nonstandard dir permissions are copied from nethack, so they're fine. But the dangerous commands need to be dealt with. Looking through the scriptlets, it appears you need to add these to the spec file: Requires(post): coreutils, mkfontdir Requires(preun): coreutils Is mkfontdir really a BuildRequires? I only see it invoked in %post. MUST items: OK: package naming guidelines OK: spec file name X: packaging guidelines -- see the section on scriptlets. I believe that the body of your %post script should be wrapped in this: if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then ... fi and the body of your %preun script should be wrapped in this: if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then ... fi OK: licensing guidelines OK: license text matches actual license OK: license file included in %doc OK: spec file in American English OK: spec file legible OK: source file matches upstream OK: builds on at least one primary arch (x86_64) NA: appropriate use of ExcludeArch OK: all dependencies listed in BuildRequires NA: proper handling of locales NA: library installation => invoke ldconfig NA: relocatable package OK: package owns all directories it creates OK: no duplicate file listings OK: proper file permissions OK: %clean section OK: consistent use of macros OK: code or permissible content NA: large documentation in -doc OK: no runtime dependencies in %doc NA: header files in -devel NA: static libraries in -static NA: pkgconfig file => Requires: pkgconfig NA: .so files in -devel NA: -devel requires main package OK: no libtool archives OK: desktop file. However, not this sentence from the Packaging guidelines: For new packages, do not apply a vendor tag to desktop files. Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the life of the package. This is mostly for the sake of menu-editing (which bases off of .desktop file/path names). OK: do not own files/dirs already owned by other packages OK: remove buildroot first in %install OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: NA: ask upstream to include a license file NA: description and summary translations OK: package builds in mock (only checked fedora-rawhide-x86_64) --: package builds on all supported arches (unable to check) OK: package functions as described (only minimal testing ... just wait until later!) OK: sane scriptlets NA: subpackages require main package NA: placement of pkgconfig files NA: file dependencies (In reply to comment #2) > the game, and they are all marked %config(noreplace). The nonstandard dir > permissions are copied from nethack, so they're fine. Just about everything was copied from nethack.... > But the dangerous > commands need to be dealt with. Looking through the scriptlets, it appears you > need to add these to the spec file: > > Requires(post): coreutils, mkfontdir > Requires(preun): coreutils And there was me thinking that rpmlint just meant "rm" and "ln" were potentially dangerous. The necessary requires for scriptlets are added. > Is mkfontdir really a BuildRequires? I only see it invoked in %post. Ack. Dropped as a BR. > X: packaging guidelines -- see the section on scriptlets. I believe that the > body of your %post script should be wrapped in this: > > if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then > ... > fi I think that %post should also run on upgrade - just in case something changes with the fonts. > and the body of your %preun script should be wrapped in this: > > if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then > ... > fi But, of course, this one is needed - otherwise upgrades are broken. Both now "exit 0" as well, just in case. > OK: desktop file. However, not this sentence from the Packaging guidelines: > > For new packages, do not apply a vendor tag to desktop files. Ack. > OK: package builds in mock (only checked fedora-rawhide-x86_64) > --: package builds on all supported arches (unable to check) The scratch-build in koji shows that it builds on all primary arches. > OK: package functions as described (only minimal testing ... just wait until > later!) And the resulting build runs on ppc too (now _that's_ why I got a PS3 - nethack and slashem on the big screen!) Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/slashem.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/slashem-0.0.8-0.2.E0F1.fc12.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1402932 The spec URL given in comment #3 shows the original spec file. The SRPM URL in the same comment gives me an HTTP 404. Sorry 'bout that - I managed to do everything except upload the new versions. All should be good now. Looks good. I can't wait to start wasting still more hours of my life on a rogue derivative. :-) APPROVED. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: slashem Short Description: Super Lotsa Added Stuff Hack - Extended Magic Owners: iarnell Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: Did anyone notice that this package includes fonts, in contravention of our packaging guidelines, and indeed those fonts are exactly the ones that are already in the nethack package? The fonts should be split out into a single nethack-bitmap-fonts package, and both this package and nethack could then dispense with the symlinking games. Gah! I must need new spectacles. I even mentioned "fonts" and it didn't click. Will get in touch with Luke to arrange something and hold off with this for a while. cvs done. Sorry for the delay on this. I've requested Luke to split the nethack fonts into a separate package. Until that happens, slashem will avoid the issue by simply requiring nethack to ensure that the fonts are installed. New spec: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/review/slashem.spec New SRPM: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/review/slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc12.src.rpm Will go ahead and check this in unless I hear otherwise. Sorry for missing the fonts in the first place. Since this has already been approved and CVS is done, you can do anything you like. If it was me, though, and it looked like a nethack-bitmap-fonts package would appear within a short time, I'd just wait. Otherwise, you could be pushing an update in only a couple of weeks. slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc11 slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc10 slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update slashem'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7432 slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update slashem'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7464 slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. slashem-0.0.8-0.3.E0F1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |