Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx-0-0.1.20141010git853fdd0.fc20.src.rpm Description: QIX clone, cut into and claim the square area Fedora Account System Username: raphgro koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7840340 rpmlint warnings show as harmless. Though the game runs fine in my XFCE, not sure what that means for exact dependencies (Requires:): "The game requires GTK 3.0 with python introspection installed. Your safest bet would be to run gnome shell, or being able to run gnome shell."
Hi Eduardo, thanks for your interest in doing the review. Please let me know about any feedback that you have, so I can do my best to support and fix the package for Fedora repo inclusion.
*** Bug 1158107 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The spec from srpm and URL differ. - You are not preserving the timestamps; use -p parameter with cp. - Escape % character in %description. ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/reviews/1151842-apx/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: apx (description) [-]: 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]: 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 10240 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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [?]: 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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: apx-0-0.1.20141010git853fdd0.fc22.noarch.rpm apx-0-0.1.20141010git853fdd0.fc22.src.rpm apx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apx apx.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint apx apx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apx 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/makerpm/reviews/1151842-apx/srpm/apx.spec 2014-10-26 11:42:49.570693509 -0600 +++ /home/makerpm/reviews/1151842-apx/srpm-unpacked/apx.spec 2014-10-12 08:12:29.000000000 -0600 @@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ BuildRequires: python2 python2-devel python-setuptools BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils python2 -#FIXME Requires: pygtk2 +#Requires: pygtk2 %description Requires -------- apx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh python(abi) Provides -------- apx: application() application(apx.desktop) apx Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/archive/853fdd0/apx-853fdd0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b62d2d0d16210b26aa1fca6e9464c5b3264f44482ae1f5a54d4e97ff8c01eab4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b62d2d0d16210b26aa1fca6e9464c5b3264f44482ae1f5a54d4e97ff8c01eab4 https://camo.githubusercontent.com/e5a26552ee632107f0031b5ca06f521a720b94fd/68747470733a2f2f6661726d382e737461746963666c69636b722e636f6d2f373433342f31333832333837383333355f653234326163316332335f6f2e706e67#/apx.png : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80076450fea8ea8cc09bca06e7f4a093fbb2f3bd81724bda204bfa21d5673de5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80076450fea8ea8cc09bca06e7f4a093fbb2f3bd81724bda204bfa21d5673de5
Eduardo, thanks for the review. Release #0.2: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx-0-0.2.20141010git853fdd0.fc20.src.rpm koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7978744 Note: Asking upstream about licenses. https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/issues/4
Upstream has decided to change license for the shipped font. https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/issues/4#issuecomment-61381346
Release #0.3: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx-0-0.3.20141102gite7766f1.fc20.src.rpm koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8009072 Eduardo, please continue with the review. Thanks again for your help.
Use versioned macro %{python2_sitelib} instead. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
Release #0.4: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx-0-0.4.20141102gite7766f1.fc20.src.rpm koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8017403 Note: Still thinking about right/legal *redistribution* of the -bundled- font, see comment in the spec file. Mabe use another external font from an existing package as a replacement (symlink to it)? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy
It would be better to use an external font as a replacement, as the author of the font have not stated explicitly the license of the font. Also, have you considered sending the setup.py script upstream?
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #9) > It would be better to use an external font as a replacement, as the author > of the font have not stated explicitly the license of the font. The font license is stated in the spec file for the individual subpackage: License: CC-BY %doc 04b03_LICENSE I am more concerned about the *re*-distribution of a (not yet) to be separately packaged font that is not really part of apx' upstream. > Also, have you considered sending the setup.py script upstream? https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/issues/6
Yes, cairo is needed, so please readd it. I'd suggest to include the setup.py as a patch, but that's up to you. The packaging of the font looks good to me as it is not released by upstream in a separated archive.
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #11) > Yes, cairo is needed, so please readd it. fixed. > I'd suggest to include the setup.py as a patch, but that's up to you. Since upstream has not suggested a better one, and I like the idea of using rpm macros, I would keep going for now with the embedded setup.py template. > The packaging of the font looks good to me as it is not released by upstream > in a separated archive. Again: It's a redistribution, already enforced at upstream. Till there is no own fonts package in Fedora with all the up-upstream files, I think it's okay for now to have this font as a subpackage and wait for a bug report about further unbundling, still some headache. Thanks for the review! - Release #0.5: (mind the new apx subfolder) Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx/apx.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/hamster/apx/apx-0-0.5.20141101gite7766f1.fc20.src.rpm build rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8438211
ping?
Sorry for the delay, I was busy at work. I don't have any other remark. PACKAGE APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: apx Short Description: QIX clone, cut into and claim the square area Upstream URL: https://github.com/projecthamster/apx Owners: raphgro Branches: f21 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
apx-0-0.5.20141101gite7766f1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apx-0-0.5.20141101gite7766f1.fc21
apx-0-0.6.20141101gite7766f1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apx-0-0.6.20141101gite7766f1.fc21
apx-0-0.6.20141101gite7766f1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apx-0-0.6.20141101gite7766f1.fc20
apx-0-0.6.20141101gite7766f1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
Note a note that legal is OK with the licensing of the font as is, though it would be nice if there was better documentation of the relicensing. A nice Japanese list member helpfully translated the original license, and it has a non-commercial use clause, so it's right out. I would simply package the font as a subpackage of apx (not going to the original upstream) and be done with it. Read the entire thread at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2015-January/002558.html
apx-0-0.7.20150118gite978d95.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apx-0-0.7.20150118gite978d95.fc21
apx-0-0.7.20150118gite978d95.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apx-0-0.7.20150118gite978d95.fc20
apx-0-0.7.20150118gite978d95.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
apx-0-0.7.20150118gite978d95.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.