Bug 920879
Summary: | Review Request: tali - GNOME tali game | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tanner Doshier <doshitan> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kalev Lember <kalevlember> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 19 | CC: | i, kalevlember, notting, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | doshitan:
fedora-review?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-05-12 17:04:11 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Tanner Doshier
2013-03-13 00:08:23 UTC
3.8.0-1 - Update to 3.8.0 - Use setgid games 3.7.92-1 - Update to 3.7.92 - Use old desktop file name Spec URL: http://doshitan.com/tmp/tali/tali.spec SRPM URL: http://doshitan.com/tmp/tali/tali-3.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Hi, I'd like to swap with you of my tickets. Like this really small game: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955913 The things should be consider a fix are: 1.I think you should use %{name} to replace "tali" as many as possible. 2.What about adding NEWS file to %doc? 3.Not familiar with the permission control "%attr(2551, root, games)", any reason can tell? Hi, after doing the fedora-review there are still many things you should fix, like incorret address of FSF and large data should be packaged as tali-data and so on. But it seems the major problem is that this package is already in Fedora as "gnome-games-gtali". So, you've packaged a duplicated one. I think you can request to become a comaintainer of "gnome-games-gtali" package and update it.(The current version is 3.6.1) (In reply to comment #2) > 1.I think you should use %{name} to replace "tali" as many as possible. A package's name isn't subject to change. I suppose %{name} helps the file be a better template for common stuff, but for specifically installed files (especially for the few in this game), explicitly stating the name seems reasonable to me. > 2.What about adding NEWS file to %doc? We could, but it isn't done for any of the other gnome games nor the old package (though that might not be sufficient justification on its own). > 3.Not familiar with the permission control "%attr(2551, root, games)", any > reason can tell? Tali currently stores it's score files in a system directory, so we add it to the games group and give the group access to read/write the score files. It's a pattern carried over from the old package. (In reply to comment #3) > like incorret address of FSF The incorrect FSF addresses is a problem with most of the games currently and needs to be fixed upstream, but the current packages have the same issue, so nothing is changing (for better or worse). > large data should be packaged as tali-data and so on. I'm not sure of the cut off point for a separate data package. Tali doesn't have *that* much stuff...not sure if it needs to be split though. > But it seems the major problem is that this package is already in Fedora as > "gnome-games-gtali". Yes, this package replaces it. The gnome-games has been broken up into individual modules and it's nicer to have each tarball as its own package. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910391#c0 Oh.. .sorry. I think you can notify upstream to fix the license problem, just like gnome-chess. Like gnome-chess, if you want to replace the old one with this I think you can use Obsolete tag, alright? (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > 1.I think you should use %{name} to replace "tali" as many as possible. > > A package's name isn't subject to change. I suppose %{name} helps the file > be a better template for common stuff, but for specifically installed files > (especially for the few in this game), explicitly stating the name seems > reasonable to me. I agree with Tanner. Changing something like: desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/gtali.desktop to: desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/g%{name}.desktop ... would be just silly. The %{name} macro is for the _rpm package's_ name and even if a file name happens to coincide with the name of the rpm, it doesn't automatically mean we should use the macro there. There are semantic differences. Christopher, I see you've assigned the ticket to yourself -- are you working on the review? I would be happy to do the review here if you are not. rpmlint output for the latest spec file: $ rpmlint tali \ tali-debuginfo-3.8.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm \ tali-3.8.0-1.fc20.src.rpm tali.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Tali tali.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-games-gtali tali.x86_64: W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed /usr/bin/tali readelf: Error: Input file '/usr/bin/tali' is not readable. tali.x86_64: W: binaryinfo-tail-failed /usr/bin/tali: [Errno 13] Permission denied: '/usr/bin/tali' tali.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/bin/tali tali.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/gtali.Colors.scores tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/kismet3.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/gnome-dice-none.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/gnome-dice-4.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/gnome-dice-2.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/kismet4.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/gnome-dice-1.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/kismet5.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/kismet6.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tali-3.8.0/COPYING tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/kismet1.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/kismet2.svg tali.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/gtali.Regular.scores tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/gnome-dice-6.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/gnome-dice-5.svg tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/gnome-dice-3.svg tali.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/tali games 02551L tali.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/tali 02551L tali.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/tali 02551L tali.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/tali/kismet-none.svg tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/games-stock.h tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/games-scores-dialog.c tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/yahtzee.c tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/games-scores-dialog.h tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/clist.c tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/games-stock.c tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/games-scores.c tali-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/tali-3.8.0/src/games-scores.h tali.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Tali 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 28 errors, 6 warnings. Fedora review tali-3.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm 2013-05-11 + OK ! needs attention + Rpmlint is very noisy here, but most of the warnings / errors seem harmless. The unreadable /usr/bin/tali is a bit weird, but it's the same as in the old gnome-games and I suppose it didn't have the r bit for a reason. + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: e9f1389df409247074aa24b329888482 tali-3.8.0.tar.xz e9f1389df409247074aa24b329888482 Download/tali-3.8.0.tar.xz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane + The spec file handles locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files + Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 APPROVED Wohooo, and that was the last one of the 15 new split up gnome-games modules! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tali Short Description: Beat the odds in a poker-style dice game Owners: doshitan Branches: f19 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). Built in rawhide and f19. Messed up the cvs flag, clearing it. |