Spec Name or Url: http://peter.ramshacklestudios.com/downloads/fedora/extras/lucidlife.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://peter.ramshacklestudios.com/downloads/fedora/extras/lucidlife-0.9-1.src.rpm Description: LucidLife is a Conway's Life simulator. The rules are rather simple. The game is started with a large grid of cell locations, and an arbitrary set of living cells. On each turn, each cell thrives or dies based on the number of cells which sourround it. A dead (empty) cell with three live cells around it becomes a living cell (a birth); a living cell with two or three neighbors survives; otherwise the cell dies (due to overcrowding) or remains dead (due to loneliness). It is based on the the GtkLife project, but with a more modern user interface and other enhancements.
I forgot to add that this is my first submission to Fedora Extras, so I will need a sponsor. Thanks.
I just thought of something. My spec file currently has a direct dependency on GTK+ 2.6 or higher. Since FC3 is being end-of-life'd tomorrow with the release of FC5 Test 2, and FC4 includes GTK+ 2.6, do I really that strict version dependency there? I know it's probably a very minor issue, but I think it could help keep the spec file clean. Thanks for your input.
(In reply to comment #2) > I just thought of something. My spec file currently has a direct dependency on > GTK+ 2.6 or higher. Since FC3 is being end-of-life'd tomorrow with the release > of FC5 Test 2, and FC4 includes GTK+ 2.6, do I really that strict version > dependency there? I know it's probably a very minor issue, but I think it could > help keep the spec file clean. Thanks for your input. I would be inclined to leave the explicit requirement, for the benefit of people that want to rebuild your package for other distros themselves (FC3 will go to legacy and many people will still use it, and someone rebuilds most Extras packages for CentOS too - see http://centos.karan.org/).
(In reply to comment #3) > I would be inclined to leave the explicit requirement, for the benefit of people > that want to rebuild your package for other distros themselves (FC3 will go to > legacy and many people will still use it, and someone rebuilds most Extras > packages for CentOS too - see http://centos.karan.org/). I agree. Thanks for the advice, Paul. :-)
I don't have permission to sponser you, but here's an initial review: MD5Sum: 25bcde0ddbe4f7db4a7ea92fcc36b7bc lucidlife-0.9.tar.gz Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds fine in Mock for FC5. * Rpmlint does not find problems * Installs & runs fine. Bad: * Desktop file is not handled correctly. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 Minor: * Drop the Requires for gtk2 & gnome-vfs2, the devel sonames will pull these in. * Should probably use %{_datadir}/%{name}/ in the files section in case of problems with file ownership.
Thanks, Brian. I've updated the .spec file and the source RPM per your suggestions. Spec: http://peter.ramshacklestudios.com/downloads/fedora/extras/lucidlife.spec SRPM: http://peter.ramshacklestudios.com/downloads/fedora/extras/lucidlife-0.9-2.src.rpm
I concur with Brian in comment 5. The only other thing I could see was that there were both a lucidlife and a lucidlife-0.9 dir in the docs dir. If that's too confusing a symlink might fix it up. Not a blocker though. APPROVED. I'll sponsor when you apply for cvsextras.
Thanks, John. :) I've just submitted my CLA and have applied for membership to cvsextras.
Builds completed. Closing as NEXTRELEASE. Thanks!