Bug 1050166 (hex-a-hop) - Review Request: hex-a-hop - Puzzle game based on hexagonal tiles
Summary: Review Request: hex-a-hop - Puzzle game based on hexagonal tiles
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: hex-a-hop
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David King
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-01-08 19:24 UTC by Mario Blättermann
Modified: 2014-01-23 11:17 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: hex-a-hop-1.1.0-4.fc20
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-23 11:17:19 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
amigadave: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Mario Blättermann 2014-01-08 19:24:18 UTC
Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/hex-a-hop.spec
SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/hex-a-hop-1.1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Hex-a-Hop is a hexagonal tile-based puzzle game with one simple goal:
destroy all green tiles! There are infinite undos and no time limits --
you just have to find a way to destroy all the green tiles and step on
a safe tile at the end.

Fedora Account System Username: mariobl

The source package bundles a font (liberation-serif) which I've removed and added a symlink to the appropriate system font.
Moreover, there are some sound files which are licensed under CC Sampling Plus 1.0 which isn't allowed in Fedora. I've excluded the sound samples from the package, but it works without them anyway. See https://sourceforge.net/p/hexahop/tickets/1/ for more information.

Comment 1 David King 2014-01-10 15:24:52 UTC
Only two minor problems:

* https://sourceforge.net/projects/hex-a-hop should be https://sourceforge.net/projects/hexahop
* The FSF address should be updated in licence headers (a bug report should be filed upstream)

The other warnings and errors from rpmlint seem bogus, except the man page warning.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v3 or later)",
     "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
     generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/david/checkout/rpms/1050166-hex-a-hop/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
     file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3143680 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: hex-a-hop-1.1.0-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          hex-a-hop-1.1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm
hex-a-hop.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency liberation-serif-fonts
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undos -> undo, undoes, undo s
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/hex-a-hop HTTP Error 404: Not Found
hex-a-hop.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/hex-a-hop/COPYING
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/hex-a-hop/font.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationSerif-Regular.ttf
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hex-a-hop
hex-a-hop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undos -> undo, undoes, undo s
hex-a-hop.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/hex-a-hop HTTP Error 404: Not Found
hex-a-hop.src: W: strange-permission hex-a-hop-1.1.0.tar.gz 0600L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint hex-a-hop
hex-a-hop.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency liberation-serif-fonts
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undos -> undo, undoes, undo s
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/hex-a-hop HTTP Error 404: Not Found
hex-a-hop.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/hex-a-hop/COPYING
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/hex-a-hop/font.ttf /usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationSerif-Regular.ttf
hex-a-hop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hex-a-hop
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
hex-a-hop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liberation-serif-fonts
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
hex-a-hop:
    application()
    application(hex-a-hop.desktop)
    hex-a-hop
    hex-a-hop(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hexahop/hex-a-hop-1.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 80bf19d936a8430cab5bc468ee6827c38052e026c609eb7ece16317e7932a0d6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80bf19d936a8430cab5bc468ee6827c38052e026c609eb7ece16317e7932a0d6


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1050166
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Comment 2 Mario Blättermann 2014-01-11 22:19:39 UTC
(In reply to David King from comment #1)
> Only two minor problems:
> 
> * https://sourceforge.net/projects/hex-a-hop should be
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/hexahop
> * The FSF address should be updated in licence headers (a bug report should
> be filed upstream)
Done: https://sourceforge.net/p/hexahop/tickets/2/
> 
> The other warnings and errors from rpmlint seem bogus, except the man page
> warning.
I found a man page (even with localized versions) in the Debian package. I have added it.

New files:
Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/hex-a-hop.spec
SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/hex-a-hop-1.1.0-4.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 3 David King 2014-01-13 09:13:37 UTC
Looks great now!

Comment 4 Mario Blättermann 2014-01-13 12:30:20 UTC
Many thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: hex-a-hop
Short Description: Puzzle game based on hexagonal tiles
Owners: mariobl
Branches: f20

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-01-13 13:44:01 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-01-14 19:58:12 UTC
hex-a-hop-1.1.0-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hex-a-hop-1.1.0-4.fc20

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-01-15 05:55:24 UTC
hex-a-hop-1.1.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-01-23 11:17:19 UTC
hex-a-hop-1.1.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.