Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66svn412-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Port of the once famous ATARI game Robbo Fedora Account System Username: raphgro rpmlint does not show any true issues, all warnings are false positives. koji rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7768469 koji f21: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7768479
Update and new build. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66-0.2.20141005svn412.fc20.src.rpm koji rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7769950 koji f21: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7770329
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [ ] gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in gnurobbo See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache [ ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: bzip2 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [ ] Is it really necessary to use your script? Please take a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net ===== 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)", "Unknown or generated". [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins, /usr/share/gnurobbo, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/oily, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/tronic, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/original [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins, /usr/share/gnurobbo, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/oily, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/original, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/tronic, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 10 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> there are some issues [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source10: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.16.png.bz2, Source11: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.32.png.bz2, Source12: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.48.png.bz2 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gnurobbo- data , gnurobbo-font [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ---> Script is used to generate the tarball. [-]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7790155 [-]: %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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnurobbo-0.66-0.2.20141005svn412.fc22.x86_64.rpm gnurobbo-data-0.66-0.2.20141005svn412.fc22.noarch.rpm gnurobbo-font-0.66-0.2.20141005svn412.fc22.noarch.rpm gnurobbo-0.66-0.2.20141005svn412.fc22.src.rpm gnurobbo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnurobbo gnurobbo-data.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo-data.noarch: W: no-documentation gnurobbo-font.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo.src: W: strange-permission gnurobbo-svn-tarball.sh 0775L gnurobbo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} gnurobbo.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{rev} gnurobbo.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:79: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE20} gnurobbo.src: W: invalid-url Source12: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.48.png.bz2 <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo.src: W: invalid-url Source11: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.32.png.bz2 <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo.src: W: invalid-url Source10: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.16.png.bz2 <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnurobbo-0.66svn412.tar.xz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gnurobbo gnurobbo-data gnurobbo-font gnurobbo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnurobbo gnurobbo-data.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> gnurobbo-data.noarch: W: no-documentation gnurobbo-font.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gnurobbo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnurobbo-data gnurobbo-font libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_image-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gnurobbo-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnurobbo gnurobbo-font (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gnurobbo: application() application(gnurobbo.desktop) gnurobbo gnurobbo(x86-64) gnurobbo-data: gnurobbo-data gnurobbo-font: gnurobbo-font Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1149423 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
Hi Flo. Thanks for caring. I have some explanations to the found issues. > Is it really necessary to use your script? Yes. It's a post-release or snapshot from svn. The curious thing is that there's no future upstream release after 0.66, though it's named 0.68 in svn sources. See the content of file named VERSION that's read by both cmake (my creation) and the binary as well. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag … > gnurobbo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> I don't understand. The given URLs are working well for me. Maybe the forwarding from sf.net is too slow for fedpkg. Please check your internet settings. > [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Renamed the sub package to -fonts (instead of just -font).
Update: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66-0.3.20141005svn412.fc20.src.rpm
Hi Raphael! > > Is it really necessary to use your script? > > Yes. It's a post-release or snapshot from svn. The curious thing is that > there's no future upstream release after 0.66, though it's named 0.68 in svn > sources. See the content of file named VERSION that's read by both cmake (my > creation) and the binary as well. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > I see your point. So far I didn't know about these upstream details. So it's ok. > > [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > … > > > gnurobbo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ <urlopen error timed out> > > I don't understand. The given URLs are working well for me. Maybe the > forwarding from sf.net is too slow for fedpkg. Please check your internet > settings. This was my misstake. I'm sorry. One more thing: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/icons/hicolor See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles Cheers, Florian
Update 0.4: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66-0.4.20141005svn412.fc20.src.rpm Note: fedora-review still complains about not owned folders. I don't know what to do about that.
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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins, /usr/share/gnurobbo, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/oily, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/original, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/tronic [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16 (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, anaconda), /usr/share/icons/hicolor (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48 (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, anaconda), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, anaconda) [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in gnurobbo [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 10 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]: 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 [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gnurobbo- data , gnurobbo-fonts [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7801590 [-]: %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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnurobbo-0.66-0.4.20141005svn412.fc22.x86_64.rpm gnurobbo-data-0.66-0.4.20141005svn412.fc22.noarch.rpm gnurobbo-fonts-0.66-0.4.20141005svn412.fc22.noarch.rpm gnurobbo-0.66-0.4.20141005svn412.fc22.src.rpm gnurobbo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnurobbo gnurobbo-data.noarch: W: no-documentation gnurobbo-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Robbo -> Robby, Yobbo, Robot gnurobbo.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{rev} gnurobbo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnurobbo-0.66svn412.tar.xz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gnurobbo gnurobbo-data gnurobbo-fonts gnurobbo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnurobbo gnurobbo-data.noarch: W: no-documentation gnurobbo-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Robbo -> Robby, Yobbo, Robot 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gnurobbo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gnurobbo-data gnurobbo-fonts libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_image-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gnurobbo-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnurobbo gnurobbo-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gnurobbo: application() application(gnurobbo.desktop) gnurobbo gnurobbo(x86-64) gnurobbo-data: gnurobbo-data gnurobbo-fonts: gnurobbo-fonts Source checksums ---------------- https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.16.png.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c8da7288a08fa061a242280ecb95c6d22c495230376ceb54bff482ad5046d40 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c8da7288a08fa061a242280ecb95c6d22c495230376ceb54bff482ad5046d40 https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.32.png.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a3ee7cbc12518246a1427d4ce17f7e3e1fd004c1a2e29df50174b548ecdf0e2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a3ee7cbc12518246a1427d4ce17f7e3e1fd004c1a2e29df50174b548ecdf0e2 https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.48.png.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d60e685228394056657c83378de33adf0ef584cf39538a8fba2c2f201557057d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d60e685228394056657c83378de33adf0ef584cf39538a8fba2c2f201557057d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1149423 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 ===== Solution ===== APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gnurobbo Short Description: Port of the once famous ATARI game Robbo Upstream URL: http://gnurobbo.sf.net/ Owners: raphgro Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: flo
Git done (by process-git-requests).
gnurobbo-0.66-1.20141005svn412.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnurobbo-0.66-1.20141005svn412.fc21
gnurobbo-0.66-1.20141005svn412.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnurobbo-0.66-1.20141005svn412.fc20
gnurobbo-0.66-1.20141005svn412.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
gnurobbo-0.66-1.20141005svn412.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
Reopening as there seem to be licensing problems: (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #7) > [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. The data subpackage has it's own LICENCE file which reads: Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 According to [1] this is a bad license, which is "NOT OKAY for Fedora". Is it possible to use the game without music? Maybe that's an option to go, otherwise maybe RPMFusion... The fonts have also a separate license which reads: Bitstream Vera Fonts Copyright and Arev Fonts Copyright whereas the first seems to be fine and you MUST name the license of the subpackage "Bitstream Vera", you must ask the fedora-legal list for the other one to be added to the list... > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins, > /usr/share/gnurobbo, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/oily, > /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/original, /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/tronic This seems fixed in git [2]. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16 > (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, anaconda), /usr/share/icons/hicolor > (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48 > (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, anaconda), > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, > anaconda) You currently own the hicolor directories. Instead you must require the hicolor-icon package and not own the directories instead. > ===== Solution ===== > APPROVED This will now cause troubles, as we'll now have non-free stuff on the mirrors... -> Blocking FE-LEGAL: Do we need to remove the packages/sources from the fedora infrastructure or is it enough to just "delete" the files in %prep and use the game without sounds? I would highly guess the former... :/ [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3 [2] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnurobbo.git/tree/gnurobbo.spec
(In reply to Thomas Spura from comment #14) > Reopening as there seem to be licensing problems: > > (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #7) > > [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. > > The data subpackage has it's own LICENCE file which reads: > Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 > > According to [1] this is a bad license, which is "NOT OKAY for Fedora". > Is it possible to use the game without music? Maybe that's an option to go, > otherwise maybe RPMFusion... > > The fonts have also a separate license which reads: > Bitstream Vera Fonts Copyright and Arev Fonts Copyright > whereas the first seems to be fine and you MUST name the license of the > subpackage "Bitstream Vera", you must ask the fedora-legal list for the > other one to be added to the list... You should not trust the LINCENSE-ttf font. They refer to "Bitstream Vera Fonts" but one of the included fonts do not belong to these. data/skins/oily/robbo.ttf and data/skins/original/ robbo.ttf are the same font: "ZapfHumnst L2 Bold Italic". It is "Copyright 1990-1996 Bitstream Inc. All rights reserved.". This is a nonfree font. /data/skins/tronic/robbo.ttf is "DejaVu Sans Condensed". It is free (license is Bitstream Vera and Public Domain) and it is already packaged in Fedora in the dejavu-sans-fonts package. To use this font the packager should replace the installed font with a symlink to the font provided by dejavu-sans-fonts. More info about the legal status here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=553911 I know it is possible not to use the fonts and use a pixmap font that has no licensing problem. You have to enable its use in the Makefile. I think the game is even better because it has a better "retro" feel withe the pixmap font. The (c) Bitstream fonts must be removed from the source in Fedora though.
(In reply to Thomas Spura from comment #14) > -> Blocking FE-LEGAL: > Do we need to remove the packages/sources from the fedora infrastructure or > is it enough to just "delete" the files in %prep and use the game without > sounds? > I would highly guess the former... :/ > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3 > [2] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnurobbo.git/tree/gnurobbo.spec Hi Thomas, thanks a lot for your review enhancements. I can fully understand that we now have a problem. Please remove all the gnurobbo stuff from the mirrors!! I'll file a new request if I could solve all the questionable points.
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4577
Please restart the review with release 2. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66svn412-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: Port of the once famous ATARI game Robbo Fedora Account System Username: raphgro rpmlint does not show any true issues, all warnings are false positives. koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7948564 When the new review is ACCEPT, I'll update to F20 and 21.
hi! thank you Thomas and Andreas! Obviously I have not checked the licenses of the fonts properly - for that I apologize! The review will follow tomorrow, Raphael. Cheers, Florian
Release #3. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66svn412-3.fc20.src.rpm Description: Port of an once famous game named Robbo Fedora Account System Username: raphgro rpmlint does not show any true issues, all warnings are false positives. koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7961506 Will attach output of rpmls for gnurobbo packages to prove legal content only.
Created attachment 951406 [details] rpmls
Request for legal statements to the content of this package, see bug #1157664.
Looking this over as it is currently, I think you can keep: data/sounds/free and delete: data/sounds/default and data/sounds/oily (Right now, it looks like you're deleting data/sounds entirely) Everything else (with the removals already done) looks okay. Lifting FE-Legal.
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #23) Tom, thanks for your quick help. I understand the answer as a GO. Personally, I think we can forego the sound completely. Let's wait if someone files a special bug about it. Flo, please go forward with the review process. Thanks again.
Release #3. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66-3.20141028svn412.fc20.src.rpm Description: Port of an once famous game named Robbo Fedora Account System Username: raphgro rpmlint does not show any true issues, all warnings are false positives. koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7961506
License file is installed, although sound and fonts are not installed. Therefore, it is okay i thinkb if these licenses are not listed under %License. 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1149423-gnurobbo/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins (gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/ru_RU(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/pl_PL(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/skins/tronic(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/sv_SE(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/es_ES(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/levels(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/de_DE(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/sk_SK(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/rob (gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/id_ID(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/en_GB(gnurobbo-data), /usr/share/gnurobbo/locales/cz_CZ(gnurobbo-data) [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in gnurobbo [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 10 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]: 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 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: [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gnurobbo- extra [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8002042 [-]: %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: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1914880 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: gnurobbo-0.66-3.20141028svn412.fc22.x86_64.rpm gnurobbo-extra-0.66-3.20141028svn412.fc22.noarch.rpm gnurobbo-0.66-3.20141028svn412.fc22.src.rpm gnurobbo.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnurobbo-fonts gnurobbo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnurobbo gnurobbo-extra.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gnurobbo-data gnurobbo.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnurobbo.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{rev} gnurobbo.src:33: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-fonts gnurobbo.src:67: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-data gnurobbo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnurobbo-0.66svn412.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gnurobbo gnurobbo-extra gnurobbo.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnurobbo-fonts gnurobbo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnurobbo gnurobbo-extra.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided gnurobbo-data 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gnurobbo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gnurobbo-extra hicolor-icon-theme libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_image-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gnurobbo-extra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnurobbo Provides -------- gnurobbo: application() application(gnurobbo.desktop) gnurobbo gnurobbo(x86-64) gnurobbo-extra: gnurobbo-extra Source checksums ---------------- https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.16.png.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c8da7288a08fa061a242280ecb95c6d22c495230376ceb54bff482ad5046d40 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c8da7288a08fa061a242280ecb95c6d22c495230376ceb54bff482ad5046d40 https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.32.png.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a3ee7cbc12518246a1427d4ce17f7e3e1fd004c1a2e29df50174b548ecdf0e2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a3ee7cbc12518246a1427d4ce17f7e3e1fd004c1a2e29df50174b548ecdf0e2 https://svn.code.sf.net/p/gnurobbo/code/gnurobbo.48.png.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d60e685228394056657c83378de33adf0ef584cf39538a8fba2c2f201557057d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d60e685228394056657c83378de33adf0ef584cf39538a8fba2c2f201557057d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1149423 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 ===== Solution ===== APPROVED
> License file is installed, although sound and fonts are not installed. > Therefore, it is okay i thinkb if these licenses are not listed under %License. The next release #4 (links at bottom) will ship a file README.fedora with the reasons why we can't distribute all content available at upstream, see bug #1157664. FYI Release #4. Ready for SCM. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/gnurobbo/gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc20.src.rpm f22 scratch → http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8018523
About modifications to Summary: and %description: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6029
gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc21
gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc20
gnurobbo-0.66-4.20141028svn412.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.