Bug 1576853 - Review Request: mednafen - A multi-system emulator utilizing OpenGL and SDL
Summary: Review Request: mednafen - A multi-system emulator utilizing OpenGL and SDL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2018-05-10 14:24 UTC by Julian Sikorski
Modified: 2018-05-14 18:33 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2018-05-14 18:33:01 UTC
Type: ---
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Julian Sikorski 2018-05-10 14:24:21 UTC
Spec URL: http://belegdol.fedorapeople.org//mednafen.spec
SRPM URL: http://belegdol.fedorapeople.org//mednafen-1.21.3-1.fc29.src.rpm

A portable, utilizing OpenGL and SDL, argument(command-line)-driven multi-system
emulator. Mednafen has the ability to remap hotkey functions and virtual system
inputs to a keyboard, a joystick, or both simultaneously. Save states are
supported, as is real-time game rewinding. Screen snapshots may be taken, in the
PNG file format, at the press of a button. Mednafen can record audiovisual
movies in the QuickTime file format, with several different lossless codecs

The following systems are supported(refer to the emulation module documentation
for more details):

* Atari Lynx
* Neo Geo Pocket (Color)
* WonderSwan
* GameBoy (Color)
* GameBoy Advance
* Nintendo Entertainment System
* Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Super Famicom
* Virtual Boy
* PC Engine/TurboGrafx 16 (CD)
* SuperGrafx
* Sega Game Gear
* Sega Genesis/Megadrive
* Sega Master System
* Sega Saturn (experimental, x86_64 only)
* Sony PlayStation

Due to the threaded model of emulation used in Mednafen, and limitations of SDL,
a joystick is preferred over a keyboard to play games, as the joystick will have
slightly less latency, although the latency differences may not be perceptible
to most people.

Comment 1 Julian Sikorski 2018-05-10 14:26:45 UTC
Mednafen has been in RPM Fusion until now. Why it has been put into non-free is something I was never able to figure out.

Comment 2 Julian Sikorski 2018-05-12 06:24:50 UTC
Scratch build:

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-05-12 21:37:47 UTC
 - Tell upstream to fix the FSF address in COPYING:

mednafen.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mednafen/COPYING

 - Shouldn't you provide a .desktop file? And maybe an Appdata file too (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData).

Package approved.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
     address)", "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
     copyright* GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3
     clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
     address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2)",
     "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 833 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mednafen
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[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.
[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 %license.
[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]: 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 =====

[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1259520 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.

Checking: mednafen-1.21.3-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
mednafen.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mednafen/COPYING
mednafen.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mednafen
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 4 Julian Sikorski 2018-05-14 17:57:14 UTC
Thank you! Upstream have been notified:
Regarding the desktop file and/or appdata: mednafen is a command-line-only software. There is no GUI, and, as such, no .desktop files or appdata.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.