Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 176205
Review Request: GZLauncher
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:19 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher-1.06.4-1.src.rpm Description: This program allows linux users to connect to and play on ZDaemon servers.
Missing BuildRequires: gtk2-devel This is what shows up in the build log: checking for gtk+-2.0 >= 2.0.0... Package gtk+-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `gtk+-2.0.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'gtk+-2.0' found configure: error: Library requirements (gtk+-2.0 >= 2.0.0) not met; consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if your libraries are in a nonstandard prefix so pkg-config can find them. In fact, you can skip BuildRequires: gtk2 and change it to gtk2-devel. rpm is good at finding what libraries things require, but not at the -devel packages required. Also change curl to curl-devel. Drop the auto tools if you're not going to run them before configure. So in the end we have BuildRequires: gtk2-devel curl-devel desktop-file-utils Don't own %{_datadir}/applications, filesystem owns that. You can use %{_datadir}/applications/*
New spec file and rpm: http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher-1.06.4-2.src.rpm http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher.spec
Sorry, forgot to drop those auto tools. New spec file and rpm: http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher.spec http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher-1.06.4-2.src.rpm
Sorry, forgot to add a changelog entry. New srpm (spec file included in comment #3): http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher-1.06.4-3.src.rpm
We need to find you a sponsor. It builds and installs OK, but when I skip the account part and use Launcher > Preferences in the menus it segfaults. Doesn't own all directories it creates, particularly %{_datadir}/gzlauncher/. Instead of including the pixmaps seperately just put ${_datadir}/gzlauncher/ in %files and own the whole thing. You don't need to wipe the changelog clean after every new release, it's common to put new entries on top of the changlog and keep the old ones. But that's not critical.
(In reply to comment #5) The reason for the program seg faulting is not becasue of the RPM package, it's because of the program itself. New spec file and rpm: http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher.spec http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/84253/gzlauncher-1.06.4-4.src.rpm
Still a couple minor things to fix. Change Source1 to merely gzlauncher.desktop, by default rpm looks in the sources dir. %{_datadir}/gzlauncher/* does not own the directory %{_datadir}/gzlauncher/ itself. %{_datadir}/gzlauncher/ will own the directory itself. Segfault bug submitted. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=667062&aid=1390964&group_id=114060 - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on FC4 - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime
I beleive you made a mistake in your comment (comment #7). A few questions: Is "no locales" bad? An error or something I have to include? When you say "code, not content", what do you mean? And is this statement good or bad? Apart from slight unclarity, I'm glad you like my spec file :)
Uploaded new rpm and spec file. Same links.
No locales is not necessarily bad. It just means there is no translated messages you would need the %find_lang macro for. See the packaging guidelines. I'm going through a checklist of things before approval.
Thank you for submitting a bug report for my gzlauncher project. I also appreciate the testing that is taking place in your attempt to approve the software. I need to note a few things about the current state of gzlauncher. 1) Due to DoS attacks on the gzlauncher master server the gzlauncher developers decided that with the latest release of zdaemon they would close the launcher protocol. The developers would allow me access to the launcher protocol if it weren't for the open nature of my launcher. As I will not close-source my software this means that gzlauncher is currently unable to contact the zdaemon master servers. In the event that someone decides to do a branch off the most recent open-source version of Zdaemon and use an open launcher protocol I will support that project with gzlauncher. In the event that Zdaemon decides to open the launcher protocol at some point I will support that project again as well. 2) GZLauncher was developed rather quickly due to a sudden demand for a decent Linux launcher. I exclusively use Linux and when I decided I wanted a launcher other users expressed their desire for one. So, I decided to build GZLauncher and I cranked it out as quickly as possible. Their are very likely some bugs including the one that has been reported to me. There is probably memory allocated but never freed, etc, etc. When the opportunity arises to continue GZLauncher developent (when the protocol is again open) I plan on doing a full re-write of the application. This will include changing to the use of libglade as opposed to using glade produced code for the interface. I will also develop it more cleanly which will hopefully mean less bugs. I also have many ideas for features including adding buddly list and an irc client to connect to the zdaemon player chat as the windows launcher does. Basically, in my opinion, this software is not in a state to be included in any packages particularly since it is useless as long as the Zdaemon launcher protocol remains closed.
Closed as per request of Michael in comment 11. (What a silly condition, only allowing protocol access to closed software. What are they trying to achieve, security through obscurity?)