Description: Open Mortal is a parody of the once popular coin-up fighting game, Mortal Kombat, for Windows and Linux. It is currently playable, has 18 playable characters. There is network game, team mode, etc. You can even add your own character. Koji Builds: F19: no build ---> will be soon EOL F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7272809 F21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7274027 F22: n/a, see F21 fedora-review: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/review.txt Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues. AFAIK there might be some false-positives from rpmlint: Added shebang and exec permissions cause of fedora-review complains: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Add_shebang No owner for general folder %{_datadir}/%{name} cause of sub packaging. Koji fails for F21/22/rawhide due to an issue with freetype header inclusion. I don't understand what's going on. rpmlint reports E: incorrect-fsf-address ---> see bug #700095 FAS-User: raphgro Urls: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Additional Information: Though, upstream seems currently not to be very active (last commit has been before 7 years), I think this game is worth to be packaged in Fedora. A quick research showed that Mageia, Slackware and PCBSD etc. seem to have packages. Thanks for review in advance!
Taken =) You've already been sponsored to the packager group, so I removed FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
yum localinstall: Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(Translate.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(Damage.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(Fighter.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(Rewind.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(PlayerInput.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(DataHelper.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(Collision.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(Doodad.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(State.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(MszCollision) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(FighterStats.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(QuickSave.pl) Error: Package: openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/openmortal-0.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: perl(Keys.pl) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest How to fix that?
Comment #2 fixed. New build. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal-0.7-2.fc20.src.rpm rpmlint: openmortal-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation openmortal-characters.noarch: W: no-documentation openmortal-data.noarch: W: no-documentation → http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-documentation This is a subpackage and the relevant documentation was included in the main package. This often happens with the -devel subpackage, but you should at least double check to ensure that any of the package's documentation which is intended for developers is included in the -devel subpackage. openmortal.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/openmortal/COPYING As upstream seems to be inactive, this should be okay, also see bug #700095. openmortal.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openmortal Upstream does not provide any manpages. (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #1) > Taken =) You've already been sponsored to the packager group, so I removed > FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Any thoughts left?
Fixes for freetype and fsf-address. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal-0.7-3.fc20.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openmortal Short Description: Open Mortal is a parody of the once popular coin-up fighting game, Mortal Kombat. Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openmortal/ Owners: raphgro Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: besser82
Still awaiting review.
> - fix fsf address https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address > %{_datadir}/%{name}/script/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > %package fonts > %{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts/ The other two subpackages require the base package, why not this one too?
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7) > > - fix fsf address > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Upstream is already informed: Patch1: http://sf.net/p/openmortal/bugs/21/attachment/openmortal-0.7-fix-fsf-address.patch > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/script/ > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories What do you want to tell me? I am thinking about moving the script/ folder into the data package, but still trying to understand the purpse of all that embedded perl. > > %package fonts > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts/ > > The other two subpackages require the base package, why not this one too? Because someone should be able to use the fonts as standalone without the need to install also any game.
> Upstream is already informed: Continue with reading the page. Don't stop after the first sentence. > What do you want to tell me? Directory %{_datadir}/%{name} is not included in your package(s) yet.
Requesting review by the legal team. There may be legal issues involved, given the source material.
(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #10) > Requesting review by the legal team. There may be legal issues involved, > given the source material. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification For the fonts case, I can not find anything in the web that says clearly where the fonts are from or what source they had. Should I try to contact upstream?
Yes, definitely contact upstream if there is any question about the font licensing. Ideally ask them to add it to their tarball, but putting it up on their website publicly would be sufficient if they don't want to roll a new release.
Doing a quick search, it appears that at least some of these fonts come from fontsupply.com, which has the following disclaimer[1]: "All fonts are the properties of their respective owners. FontSupply.com does not claim ownership of any fonts available on the site. All fonts have been acquired by either being uploaded by the author or user, freeware, shareware, or a demo of the font... FontSupply.com assumes that files presented to us by users are free for distribution. If you find a file that should not be distributed freely please let us know and we will remove the file." There is no explicit license of the fonts and they are only assumed to be free for distribution. I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice, but I suspect this will be unacceptable[2]. Probably you will need to remove these fonts from the tarball[3] and modify the project to use fonts already available and approved in Fedora. Of course, all of this assumes that Legal reviews the potential trademark situation and finds it legally acceptable. [1] http://www.fontsupply.com/disclaimer.php [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7) (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #9) Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal-0.7-4.fc20.src.rpm Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7576267 (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #12) (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #13) Stephen, thanks a lot for your explanation of legal issues at the fonts where I do fully confirm. But consider thar upstream is inactive since years. Therefore, it's doubtful that a notice to upstream will decide anything and in the short term. Maybe it's the easier way to move this package to RPM Fusion and avoid all that nasty legal discussion?
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #14) > (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7) > (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #9) > > Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal.spec > SRPM URL: > https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal-0.7-4.fc20.src. > rpm > > Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7576267 > > > (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #12) > (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #13) > > Stephen, thanks a lot for your explanation of legal issues at the fonts > where I do fully confirm. But consider thar upstream is inactive since > years. Therefore, it's doubtful that a notice to upstream will decide > anything and in the short term. As I said, this *could* be resolved as a packager fix rather than an upstream one: you could remove the questionable fonts from the tarball before uploading it and then patch the source code to use some existing fonts that are packaged (They won't look the same as the upstream release, but I suspect that people are more concerned with the gameplay). > Maybe it's the easier way to move this package to RPM Fusion and avoid all > that nasty legal discussion? RPM Fusion doesn't protect you from either of these legal issues. If there's a trademark or likeness issue, then RPM Fusion cannot carry it either. As for the fonts, I'm not sure how they would handle that, but you'd likely need to get a legal opinion either way, so scrubbing the fonts from the tarball is likely to be needed regardless. So for the moment, I'd wait to hear a real legal opinion.
Closing. Sorry but I have neither interest in patching those upstream fonts, nor fighting with legal issues. If someone else is still interested in an official Fedora Mortal, this here is your chance. Thanks a lot for your help so far.
At least, thin.ttf is definitely not redistributable within Fedora. Fontforge warns about an FS Type of 2 and "not editable".