Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-games.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-games-3.32.1-1.src.rpm Description: Games is a GNOME application to browse your video games library and to easily pick and play a game from it. Fedora Account System Username: atim Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/gnome-games Depends on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701648
- Missing dist tag: Release: 1%{?dist} - Add: Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories - Remove executable bits: gnome-games.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gnome-games/AUTHORS gnome-games.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/gnome-games/COPYING - Dubious, iagno was updated recently, have you you contacted the maintainers about this? Obsoletes: iagno In any case you need to specify the version obsoleted and add a Provides. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-games See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 423 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-games/review-gnome- games/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: 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]: 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 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 gnome- games [?]: 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 all installed packages. [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: gnome-games-3.32.1-1.x86_64.rpm gnome-games-debuginfo-3.32.1-1.x86_64.rpm gnome-games-debugsource-3.32.1-1.x86_64.rpm gnome-games-3.32.1-1.src.rpm gnome-games.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided iagno gnome-games.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/gnome-games/plugins/libgames-ms-dos-plugin.so gnome-games.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gnome-games/AUTHORS gnome-games.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/gnome-games/COPYING gnome-games.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-games gnome-games.src:35: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes iagno 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-games.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-games-3.32.1-2.src.rpm As for obsoletes *iagno* package, if i remember correctly i added this when tried to install gnome-boxes on F29... I will test this again but probably this not needed for F30+. Removed for now.
Typo in previous comment: gnome-boxes > gnome-games
iagno still have this https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/iagno/blob/master/f/iagno.spec#_24 They conflicting and not possible to install both, so: 1. We can fix this in *iagno* spec since old package *gnome-games* already retired. 2. We can rename this package from *gnome-games* to *gnome-games-app* for example.
gnome-games was retired 9 years ago! These Obsoletes in iagno should have been removed two versions after. They need to be removed. Propose a Pull Request removing these Requires and explain that you are reviving a new gnome-games.
s/these Requires/these Obsoletes
Done https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/iagno/pull-request/1 TY!
Merged https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/iagno/pull-request/3 Now probably we need to wait a little bit until rebuilded *iagno* will be pushed to repos?
Fixed *iagno* in Stable now https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4014dd2d15
Package approved.
FEDORA-2019-f4543c3dd9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f4543c3dd9
gnome-games-3.32.1-2.fc30, retro-gtk-0.16.1-2.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-f4543c3dd9
gnome-games-3.32.1-2.fc30, retro-gtk-0.16.1-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.