Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: GBall is a simple yet nice implementation of the well known ball and racket game. It is designed to run under the GNU/Linux console (including terminal emulators). The aim of the game is simple: control your racket and move it around to bounce the ball and hit all the bricks. If the ball hits a wall, it will bounce. If it fell down the screen without bouncing on the racket, you lose. The game includes 10 levels with an option to play levels randomly, and a highscore board. Fedora Account System Username: mohammedisam
This is unofficial package review - Issues ------ * Use %make_install macro instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section * %license macro should be used to include License %license COPYING https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Result of fedora-review tool output looks good and pasted below for reference. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [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 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]: 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: gball-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm gball-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm gball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high score, high-score, highs core gball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high score, high-score, highs core 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- gball (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gnudos info libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnudos.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gball: gball gball(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n gball Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
> Requires > libgnudos.so.1()(64bit) > Requires: gnudos https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
(In reply to Sinny Kumari from comment #1) > This is unofficial package review - Thanks :) > * Use %make_install macro instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} Fixed > * %license macro should be used to include License Fixed > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: gball-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm > gball-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm > gball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high > score, high-score, highs core > gball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high score, > high-score, highs core > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Fixed
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #2) > > Requires > > libgnudos.so.1()(64bit) > > > Requires: gnudos > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires I understand there is no need to explicitly specify the Requires, am I correct? I removed the Requires clause from the spec file.
Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
Review swap with py4j (bug #1215762)? Some informal hints to the spec file: > Group: Amusements/Games Remove this line, it's deprecated since F17. > Requires(post): info > Requires(preun): info What's this for? Your info file should not harm if there's no info installed in the system, what I guess does not happen to often in practical usage. I do not know what install-info does special, maybe just copy the file in the right folder and reference in files section. Better remove those lines with Requires. > URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects > Source0: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Maybe better: URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Source0: %{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Please tell if you will fix the above issues, those are just SHOULD. Later I can do the official fedora-review run.
APPROVED 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 (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder /fedora-review/1173846-gball/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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gball [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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: [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: gball-1.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm gball-1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- gball (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh info libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnudos.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gball: gball gball(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 718994ff5973d900fccfae729d685a0ba617704e21dfe41b4a9559eafffe878b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 718994ff5973d900fccfae729d685a0ba617704e21dfe41b4a9559eafffe878b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o=--yum --clean --init -b 1173846 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
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6) > > Group: Amusements/Games > Remove this line, it's deprecated since F17. Removed. > > Requires(post): info > > Requires(preun): info > What's this for? Your info file should not harm if there's no info installed > in the system, what I guess does not happen to often in practical usage. I > do not know what install-info does special, maybe just copy the file in the > right folder and reference in files section. Better remove those lines with > Requires. I understand install-info is just keeping things tidy, exactly as you said. I added these according to the scriplets in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets. If it is not mandatory I can remove it though. > > URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects > > Source0: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > Maybe better: > URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects > Source0: %{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Fixed
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > APPROVED > Thank you very much :)
Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1-2.fc21.src.rpm
What should I do regarding the review swap? I see your bug (#1215762) is already assigned?
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gball Short Description: The Console Ball and Racket Game Upstream URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Owners: mohammedisam Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
(In reply to Mohammed Isam from comment #11) > What should I do regarding the review swap? I see your bug (#1215762) is > already assigned? Forget about it. But could you do another review? Trojita (E-Mail client based on Qt), if you may like: bug #1208582.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13) > Forget about it. But could you do another review? > Trojita (E-Mail client based on Qt), if you may like: bug #1208582. I would be happy to. Though I should say this will be my very first review, so I will probably ask more questions during the review if that is okay?
gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gball-1.1-3.fc22
gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-90bb10847b
gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-afbbcc162e
gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d8e7ab3de3
gball-1.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e35b198da0
gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-90bb10847b
gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-afbbcc162e
gball-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e35b198da0
gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d8e7ab3de3
gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gball-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.