Spec URL: http://test.jazkor.cz/EmptyEpsilon.spec SRPM URL: http://test.jazkor.cz/EmptyEpsilon-2017.01.19-3.fc25.src.rpm Description: Spaceship bridge simulator game Fedora Account System Username: jkalina EmptyEpsilon is opensource spaceship bridge simulator game. Looking for review.
There could be considered including SeriousProton "library" as potential guidelines violation, but the library is meant to be built with application, it cannot be built standalone and application does not provide dynamic linking of this library support.
RPM now available on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jkalina/EmptyEpsilon/
I'm not a sponsor, this is just informal review. Package Review ============== - scratch-build (failed): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17950413 - There's a bundled font, it should be packaged spearately or replaced with a different font available in Fedora - The licensing is a quite complex - there are assets which were taken from various 3rd party sources and have their own licensing terms, which are not always marked clearly in the tarball. You should do a full licensing review of them - identify licenses of each individual component, document your findings and reflect this in the License tag in the specfile. - See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses - Some files under `packs` directory are non-free, they need to be removed from the SRPM - To do that you should make a script (name it generate-sources.sh) that will download upstream sources and repack them with problematic components removed. Then use such tarball as Source0 and add the script as Source1 - Please fix the rpmlint warnings (except the manpage, I think a game doesn't need it) - In order to be visible in Gnome Software Center and the like, it should ship an appdata file. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData - Other comments inline in the review template Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - Non-free components need to be removed [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "SIL (v1.1)", "Unknown or generated". 659 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/1422931-EmptyEpsilon/licensecheck.txt [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/emptyepsilon [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/emptyepsilon [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Should use %cmake macros or pass the flags manually [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. - the first line should end with version-release, not just release [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - Fedora generally uses lowercase package names, unless there is upstream preference for case sensitive name. I don't know upstream, so I'm leaving this up to you. - See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - probably correct, but xclip not justified - I'd like to see a comment above and also justify why it's Recommends and not Requires [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. - Doesn't build on ppc64[le]. I don't think anyone will be playing spaceship simulator on a mainframe, so using ExcludeArch should be fine. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files. [?]: 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [!]: 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. - It doesn't include license texts for content licenses [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. - I see what the patch does, but it would be nice if there was a comment above, so I don't need to open the file to see that. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - Doesn't build on ppc64[le]. I don't think anyone will be playing spaceship simulator on a mainframe, so using ExcludeArch should be fine. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. - The game has no tests [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - You should use `-p` argument when using cp [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 221306880 bytes in /usr/share EmptyEpsilon-2017.01.19-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm:221306880 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: EmptyEpsilon-2017.01.19-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo-2017.01.19-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm EmptyEpsilon-2017.01.19-3.fc26.src.rpm EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C EmptyEpsilon places you in the roles of a spaceship's bridge officers, like those seen EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C in Star Trek. While you can play EmptyEpsilon alone or with friends, the best experience EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Engineering. Except for the Captain, each officer operates part of the ship through EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C a specialized screen. The Captain relies on their trusty crew to report information EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3 ['2017.01.19-3.fc26', '2017.01.19-3'] EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary EmptyEpsilon EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources EmptyEpsilon.src: E: description-line-too-long C EmptyEpsilon places you in the roles of a spaceship's bridge officers, like those seen EmptyEpsilon.src: E: description-line-too-long C in Star Trek. While you can play EmptyEpsilon alone or with friends, the best experience EmptyEpsilon.src: E: description-line-too-long C Engineering. Except for the Captain, each officer operates part of the ship through EmptyEpsilon.src: E: description-line-too-long C a specialized screen. The Captain relies on their trusty crew to report information EmptyEpsilon.src:34: W: setup-not-quiet 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo-2017.01.19-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C EmptyEpsilon places you in the roles of a spaceship's bridge officers, like those seen EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C in Star Trek. While you can play EmptyEpsilon alone or with friends, the best experience EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Engineering. Except for the Captain, each officer operates part of the ship through EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C a specialized screen. The Captain relies on their trusty crew to report information EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3 ['2017.01.19-3.fc26', '2017.01.19-3'] EmptyEpsilon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary EmptyEpsilon 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): EmptyEpsilon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libsfml-audio.so.2.4()(64bit) libsfml-graphics.so.2.4()(64bit) libsfml-network.so.2.4()(64bit) libsfml-system.so.2.4()(64bit) libsfml-window.so.2.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo: EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo EmptyEpsilon-debuginfo(x86-64) EmptyEpsilon: EmptyEpsilon EmptyEpsilon(x86-64) application() application(EmptyEpsilon.desktop) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/daid/EmptyEpsilon/archive/EE-2017.01.19.zip#/EmptyEpsilon-EE-2017.01.19.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2e8389fe48e71921f09c95e1da678e51800fba0e7111088493a345fb3974b3ee CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e8389fe48e71921f09c95e1da678e51800fba0e7111088493a345fb3974b3ee https://github.com/daid/SeriousProton/archive/EE-2017.01.19.zip#/SeriousProton-EE-2017.01.19.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d987dc6481d3d67166e636fb3c5e3f50779e1f037eb72e92418040a5abadf5ae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d987dc6481d3d67166e636fb3c5e3f50779e1f037eb72e92418040a5abadf5ae Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1422931 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks for review. Problem with licensing is serious - after removing non-free "packs" the game does not work correctly (invisible spaceships with missing models). Closing issue until I find way to produce usable free package.