Bug 1700093 - Review Request: corsix-th - Open source clone of Theme Hospital
Summary: Review Request: corsix-th - Open source clone of Theme Hospital
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-04-15 20:13 UTC by Artem
Modified: 2019-05-01 00:40 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-05-01 00:40:40 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Artem 2019-04-15 20:13:29 UTC
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/corsix-th.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/corsix-th-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc30.src.rpm

Description:

CorsixTH aims to reimplement the game engine of Theme Hospital, and be able to load the original game data files. This means that you will need a purchased copy of Theme Hospital, or a copy of the demo, in order to use CorsixTH. After most of the original engine has been reimplemented in open source code, the project will serve as a base from which extensions and improvements to the original game can be made.

Fedora Account System Username: atim

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-04-20 21:58:58 UTC
 - Not sure this is allowed en Fedora:

We use graphics, sound and other data from the original game so one of the following is required:

    Original game CD from eBay etc. or your dusty bookshelfsmile
    A download from GOG.com or Origin

Needs legal opinion on this.

Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2019-04-22 19:02:17 UTC
The strict letter of the guidelines say that software which has external non-free/non-freely distributable _code_ dependencies is not acceptable in Fedora. This would be an external non-free/non-freely distributable _content_ dependency.

I think, as long as we do not distribute any of the "Theme Hospital" content in Fedora, this application is fine to be included. I would hope that the application, if installed without the "Theme Hospital" content, does something sensible, and doesn't just crash.

Lifting FE-Legal.

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-04-23 06:40:22 UTC
Source0:        %{url}/archive/v%{version}-beta1.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}-beta1.tar.gz

→

Source0:        %{url}/archive/v%{version}-beta1/%{name}-%{version}-beta1.tar.gz


Please document the license breakdown in the SPEC.


Package otherwise 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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).
[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 10240 bytes in 2 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: 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 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in corsix-
     th-data
[?]: 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
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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:
[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]: 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: corsix-th-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          corsix-th-data-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.noarch.rpm
          corsix-th-debuginfo-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          corsix-th-debugsource-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          corsix-th-0.63-0.3.beta1.fc31.src.rpm
corsix-th.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplement -> re implement, re-implement, implement
corsix-th.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplemented -> re implemented, re-implemented, implemented
corsix-th-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplement -> re implement, re-implement, implement
corsix-th-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplemented -> re implemented, re-implemented, implemented
corsix-th-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
corsix-th.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplement -> re implement, re-implement, implement
corsix-th.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplemented -> re implemented, re-implemented, implemented
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-04-23 13:51:51 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/corsix-th

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2019-04-23 17:09:53 UTC
corsix-th-0.63-0.4.beta1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-22a8be6b1f

Comment 6 Artem 2019-04-23 17:20:50 UTC
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #2)
> I would hope that the
> application, if installed without the "Theme Hospital" content, does
> something sensible, and doesn't just crash.

Good news: it doesn't crash without original "Theme Hospital" content. The first time you start the game it may ask for the location of Theme Hospital data files.

Pushed to testing. Thank you!

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-04-24 20:27:49 UTC
corsix-th-0.63-0.4.beta1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-22a8be6b1f

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-05-01 00:40:40 UTC
corsix-th-0.63-0.4.beta1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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