SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/tuxanci.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/tuxanci-0.21.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tuxanci is a first tux shooter game supporting single player and multiplayer modes both on a single computer and over the network.
Ok. A few notes first. > Group: Amusements/Games This is not required anymore, unless you plan to target EL5 > %doc %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} I think you should include bundled README, LICENSE and AUTHORS file in doc like this: > %doc README LICENSE AUTHORS No need for %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} under %files section rpmlint output: Checking: tuxanci-0.21.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm tuxanci-0.21.0-1.fc20.src.rpm tuxanci.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer tuxanci.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer tuxanci.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tuxanci-0.21.0/LICENCE tuxanci.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuxanci-0.21.0 tuxanci.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuxanci tuxanci.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/tuxanci.appdata.xml tuxanci.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer tuxanci.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Spelling look correct to me, so we can ignore those. Manual pages are SHOULD according to packaging guidelines, but not a blocker. $ appdata-validate --relax 1162076-tuxanci/srpm-unpacked/tuxanci.appdata.xml also return no errors, so I don't know why rpmlint reports about invalid-appdata-file. This should be ok too. But this one: tuxanci.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tuxanci-0.21.0/LICENCE https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address You must inform upstream about that, but I think this is not a blocker either.
(In reply to Mihkel Vain from comment #1) > Ok. > > A few notes first. > > > Group: Amusements/Games > > This is not required anymore, unless you plan to target EL5 > > > %doc %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} > > I think you should include bundled README, LICENSE and AUTHORS file in doc > like this: > > > %doc README LICENSE AUTHORS > > No need for %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} under %files section Why? Upstream install tool copies it there. > tuxanci.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/tuxanci-0.21.0/LICENCE > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address > > You must inform upstream about that, but I think this is not a blocker > either. Done.
(In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #2) > (In reply to Mihkel Vain from comment #1) > > Ok. > > > > A few notes first. > > > > > Group: Amusements/Games > > > > This is not required anymore, unless you plan to target EL5 > > > > > %doc %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} > > > > I think you should include bundled README, LICENSE and AUTHORS file in doc > > like this: > > > > > %doc README LICENSE AUTHORS > > > > No need for %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} under %files section > > Why? Upstream install tool copies it there. > Whoops. Sorry about that :) > > tuxanci.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > > /usr/share/doc/tuxanci-0.21.0/LICENCE > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address > > > > You must inform upstream about that, but I think this is not a blocker > > either. > > Done. This package has a license that is acceptable for fedora, rpmlint is more or less happy and spec file looks good to me. I'd say this package is APPROVED.
Thank you! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tuxanci Short Description: First tux shooter multiplayer network game Upstream URL: http://www.tuxanci.org/en/start Owners: lkundrak Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thank you. Imported.