Bug 817597
Summary: | Review Request: luola - A 2-4 player 2D caveflying game | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | inactive <aTe5bahc> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | aTe5bahc, msuchy, package-review, rdieter, susi.lehtola |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.luolamies.org/software/luola | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-08-21 09:41:52 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: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 201449, 817601, 817602 |
Description
inactive
2012-04-30 15:22:43 UTC
I also packed the two available level sets: luola-stdlevels: Spec URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-stdlevels.spec SRPM URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-stdlevels-6.0-1.fc16.src.rpm luola-nostalgia: Spec URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-nostalgia.spec SRPM URL: http://jor.netne.net/files/luola-nostalgia-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm one pkg per review please (ie, submit the new level pkgs separately) Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817601 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817602 Explicit library requires are forbidden. Drop them. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ** cp %{_sourcedir}/%{name}.6.gz %{_builddir} This should read cp -p %{SOURCE1} . ** echo -e "8c8\n< Icon=luola.png\n---\n> Icon=luola" | patch luola.desktop - If you are patching, please create a proper patch. ** Please use the -p flag with install, so that time stamps are preserved. ** install -D %{name}.desktop %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop -m 0644 This is wrong. You need to use desktop-file-install (or desktop-file-validate). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files ** Are you a member of the packagers group? Thank you very much. I think I fixed all your points, I updated the files. I'm not member of the packagers group (yet). OK. As it happens, I'm a sponsor and I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora guidelines, most importantly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines In addition to the Packaging Guidelines, there are a bunch of language / application specific guidelines that are linked to in the Packaging Guidelines. Here are some tricks of the trade: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues I will sponsor you if you have at least one other submission and perform a couple of informal reviews of packages of other people. Please review only packages *not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I will have to do the full formal review after you to check that you have got everything correctly. Once I have sponsored you you will be able to do formal reviews of your own. Thank you. I'd like to be sponsored by you. By now, I added one more package and one informal review (is the style ok?). Package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818991 Review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845769#c2 Hold your horses. You were missing for almost four months, what was the reason? The informal review is not ok, it's supposed to be a full fledged review - it's only called informal because you don't have the right to approve reviews just yet since you're not a packager. A proper review is such as the one Mikolaj Izdebski did in bug #845769. And we're not that picky about spellings in Fedora - if it's proper, understandable English, it's OK. So no need to fuss about color/colour, meter/metre and so on. Please perform two fully fledged informal reviews. I'll have a look at the package soon. Not to be a pain, but: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description " Please put personal preferences aside and use American English spelling in the summary and description. Packages can contain additional translated summary/description for supported Non-English languages, if available. " (In reply to comment #9) > Not to be a pain, but: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description > > "Please put personal preferences aside and use American English spelling in > the summary and description. Packages can contain additional translated > summary/description for supported Non-English languages, if available." Still, the statement is rather mild (a SHOULD, not a MUST). If the rule really was reinforced, there'd be a lot more language policing around. I'd spend my resources on improving the summaries and descriptions that are found lacking or are in broken English. I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. This fails to build for me. Here is a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5323253 Ping! Are you still interrested in this review? No response. Closing. Feel free to reopen if you want to continue. |