Bug 1739290 - Review Request: angband - Text-based roguelike RPG game
Summary: Review Request: angband - Text-based roguelike RPG game
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-GAMESIG
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-08-09 01:08 UTC by Wart
Modified: 2020-04-08 20:28 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Wart 2019-08-09 01:08:08 UTC
Spec URL: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/angband.spec
SRPM URL: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/angband-4.1.3-2.fc30.src.rpm
Description: A roguelike game where you explore a very deep dungeon, kill monsters, try to equip yourself with the best weapons and armor you can find, and finally face Morgoth - "The Dark Enemy".
Fedora Account System Username: wart

rpmlint complains about non-standard permissions, which are required to enable a shared scoreboard file.  It also complains about a missing man page, which is not provided by upstream.

angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/angband angband 2755
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/angband 2755
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband 775
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband/scores angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband/scores 2775
angband.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary angband

Comment 1 Artur Iwicki 2019-08-09 08:23:09 UTC
>Group:   Amusements/Games   
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Not used in Fedora. [1]

>%install
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Don't do this. [1]

>%clean
Not used in Fedora. [1]

>%doc changes.txt copying.txt faq.txt readme.txt thanks.txt
copying.txt should be marked as %license, not %doc. [2]

[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Comment 2 Wart 2019-08-10 14:01:46 UTC
Updated spec and src rpm based on the feedback:

https://wart.fedorapeople.org/angband.spec
https://wart.fedorapeople.org/angband-4.1.3-3.fc30.src.rpm

Comment 3 Elliott Sales de Andrade 2019-08-13 03:01:59 UTC
The URL appears to be dead.

%defattr is generally unneeded.

I think you need to follow these guidelines if you want to use non-standard groups:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UsersAndGroups/

Comment 4 Wart 2019-08-13 23:50:52 UTC
Updated spec and src rpm based to fix the issues described in comment #3:

https://wart.fedorapeople.org/angband.spec
https://wart.fedorapeople.org/angband-4.1.3-4.fc30.src.rpm

Comment 5 J. Scheurich 2019-08-16 20:52:28 UTC
This only a informal review, i aam not in the packager group 8-(

[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
...
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 18739200 bytes in /usr/share
     angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm:18739200
     See:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
...
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-debuginfo-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-debugsource-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.src.rpm
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue
-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/angband angband 2755
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/angband 2755
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband 775
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband/scores angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband/scores 2775
angband.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary angband
...
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings

Comment 6 J. Scheurich 2019-08-16 21:00:10 UTC
This only a informal review, i aam not in the packager group 8-(

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_file_permissions


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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons Attribution Public
     License (v3.0) GPL (v2) GNU Lesser General Public License", "NTP
     License", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "zlib/libpng license". 807 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/mufti/review-angband/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in angband
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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 18739200 bytes in /usr/share
     angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm:18739200
     See:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-debuginfo-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-debugsource-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.src.rpm
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/angband angband 2755
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/angband 2755
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband 775
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband/scores angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband/scores 2775
angband.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary angband
angband.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: angband-debuginfo-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
angband-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rephial.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
angband-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rephial.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rephial.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/angband angband 2755
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/angband 2755
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband 775
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband/scores angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband/scores 2775
angband.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary angband
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
http://rephial.org/downloads/4.1/angband-4.1.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9402c4f8da691edbd4567a948c5663e1066bee3fcb4a62fbcf86b5454918406f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9402c4f8da691edbd4567a948c5663e1066bee3fcb4a62fbcf86b5454918406f


Requires
--------
angband (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(angband)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libncursesw.so.6()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    shadow-utils
    xorg-x11-fonts-misc

angband-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

angband-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
angband:
    angband
    angband(x86-64)
    application()
    application(angband.desktop)
    config(angband)

angband-debuginfo:
    angband-debuginfo
    angband-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)

angband-debugsource:
    angband-debugsource
    angband-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n angband
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 7 J. Scheurich 2019-08-24 13:13:11 UTC
Maybe you should sove:

rpm -i rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/angband-4.1.3-4.fc30.x86_64.rpm
warning: group angband does not exist - using root
warning: group angband does not exist - using root
warning: group angband does not exist - using root

Comment 8 J. Scheurich 2019-08-24 13:48:31 UTC
Licence shuold be something like

License: GPLv2 and LGPLv3+ and BSD 

$ more angband-4.1.3/src/win/include/png.h
...
 * Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
 * source code, or portions hereof, for any purpose, without fee, subject
 * to the following restrictions:
 *
 * 1. ...

If i use

$ angband

i get some output, but if i start the desktop file, nothing happens 8-(

in "$ ps -ef" i can read
/usr/bin/angband -g -mgcu

but no graphics output 8-(

Comment 9 J. Scheurich 2019-08-24 13:56:42 UTC
%changelog
* Tue Aug 13 2019 Wart <wart at kobold dot org> 4.1.3-4
- Use recommended dynamic allocation for the group%changelog

shouldn't is be

%changelog
* Tue Aug 13 2019 Wart <wart@kobold.org> 4.1.3-4
- Use recommended dynamic allocation for the group

Comment 10 J. Scheurich 2019-08-24 14:13:16 UTC
This only a informal review, i aam not in the packager group 8-(

Sorry to add the review twice, but the first was incomplete 


Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_file_permissions


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons Attribution Public
     License (v3.0) GPL (v2) GNU Lesser General Public License", "NTP
     License", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "zlib/libpng license". 807 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/mufti/review-angband/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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).
[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.
[-]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in angband
[!]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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 18739200 bytes in /usr/share
     angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm:18739200
     See:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-debuginfo-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-debugsource-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          angband-4.1.3-4.fc31.src.rpm
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/angband angband 2755
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/angband 2755
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband 775
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband/scores angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband/scores 2775
angband.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary angband
angband.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: angband-debuginfo-4.1.3-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
angband-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rephial.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
angband-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rephial.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roguelike -> rogue like, rogue-like, roguery
angband.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rephial.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/angband angband 2755
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/angband 2755
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband 775
angband.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/games/angband/scores angband
angband.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/angband/scores 2775
angband.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary angband
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
http://rephial.org/downloads/4.1/angband-4.1.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9402c4f8da691edbd4567a948c5663e1066bee3fcb4a62fbcf86b5454918406f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9402c4f8da691edbd4567a948c5663e1066bee3fcb4a62fbcf86b5454918406f


Requires
--------
angband (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(angband)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libncursesw.so.6()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    shadow-utils
    xorg-x11-fonts-misc

angband-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

angband-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
angband:
    angband
    angband(x86-64)
    application()
    application(angband.desktop)
    config(angband)

angband-debuginfo:
    angband-debuginfo
    angband-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)

angband-debugsource:
    angband-debugsource
    angband-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n angband
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 11 J. Scheurich 2019-08-24 15:07:16 UTC
Shouldn't you create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ ?

%files
...
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/%{name}.png

Comment 12 Wart 2019-08-25 16:57:56 UTC
(In reply to J. Scheurich from comment #11)
> Shouldn't you create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ ?
> 
> %files
> ...
> %dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/%{name}.png

This would be incorrect, as %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ is already owned by the hicolor-icon-theme and fedora-logos packages (at least on Fedora 30).  Per the packaging guidelines, I don't believe it's necessary to add an explicit dependency on hicolor-icon-theme or fedora-logos:

"Directory ownership is a little more complex than file ownership. Packages must own all directories they put files in, except for:

* any directories owned by the filesystem, man, or other explicitly created -filesystem packages

* any directories owned by other packages in your package’s natural dependency chain"

My interpretation is that 'hicolor-icon-theme' falls under the 'natural dependency chain' for graphical applications, as it is pulled in by two primary window managers: gnome-icon-theme and kde-libs.  Thus, no explicit Requires: would be necessary.

Comment 13 Wart 2019-08-25 18:07:59 UTC
(In reply to J. Scheurich from comment #9)
> %changelog
> * Tue Aug 13 2019 Wart <wart at kobold dot org> 4.1.3-4
> - Use recommended dynamic allocation for the group%changelog
> 
> shouldn't is be
> 
> %changelog
> * Tue Aug 13 2019 Wart <wart@kobold.org> 4.1.3-4
> - Use recommended dynamic allocation for the group

Obfuscation of email addresses in the %changelog are allowed per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

"If you wish to "scramble" or "obfuscate" your email address in the changelog, you may do so, provided that it is still understandable by humans."

Comment 14 Wart 2019-08-25 22:04:47 UTC
Updated files to address issues in the above review:

https://fedorapeople.org/~wart/angband-4.2.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
https://fedorapeople.org/~wart/angband.spec

The license comments made me take a closer look, and I found that the 'shockbolt' tileset had additional redistribution limitations. I made an updated tarball and removed the offending files per the instructions here:  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/


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