Spec Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/lincity-ng.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/lincity-ng-1.0.1-1.src.rpm Description: LinCity-NG is a City Simulation Game. It is a polished and improved version of the classic LinCity (http://www.floot.demon.co.uk/lincity.html) game. Within the scope of the GoTM project at happypenguin (http://happypenguin.org) we have created a new iso-3D graphics engine, with a completely redone and modern GUI.
Just skimming over the spec file (and not taking a deeper look), the only thing I find odd is the "we have created" sentence in the description. It is common practice to remove such ambiguity by not using first person pronouns. Is the context of GoTM really relevant? My proposal: LinCity-NG is a City Simulation Game. It is a polished and improved version of the classic LinCity (http://www.floot.demon.co.uk/lincity.html) game with a new iso-3D graphics engine and a completely redone and modern GUI.
Your proposal looks good. I'll make that change in the next build (or before commit if no new build is needed).
PUBLISH +1 MD5Sums: 1576a0765eb29a668f7af3084de00739 lincity-ng-1.0.1.tar.bz2 Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * Desktop entry is fine * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * All desired features are enabled * Make succeeds even when %{_smp_mflags} is defined * Files have appropriate permissions and owners * Rpmlint does not find problems * Package installs and uninstalls cleanly on FC4 * Software runs fine Minor: * Refer to comment #1.
rpmlint is clean. MD5 sums match upstream builds in mock on rawhide, fc3, fc4 on i386 and x86_64 spec looks good. installs and removes cleanly and runs as expected. license is ok Group is ok package name is ok APPROVED about the only thing i can think of is to break the game data into a -data package that could be hardlinked across the different archs and versions to save some hdd space since the package is 35mb I think Micheals suggestion for description is good also
Any reason why the bug was switched back to FE-REVIEW from FE-ACCEPT?
I think you guys collided in midair. ;) Always nice to get two approval reviews for one package. I'll set this back to FE-ACCEPT, based on the above context.