spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/seahorse-adventures-1.1-3.20200502git0f342d34/seahorse-adventures.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/seahorse-adventures-1.1-3.20200502git0f342d34/seahorse-adventures-1.1-3.20200502git0f342d34.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44034044 Description: Help barbie the seahorse float on bubbles to the moon. Includes original soundtrack, graphics, and 15 levels! Fedora Account System Username: suve This a re-review request for seahorse-adventures, which was previously packaged for Fedora (it is, in fact, still available for F30 and F31). It was dropped from F32+ due to being python2-only. A python3 fork as appeared recently (https://github.com/dulsi/seahorse-adventures) and that's what's being packaged here.
Version 1.2 has been tagged: https://github.com/dulsi/seahorse-adventures/releases %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/**/apps/%{name}.png Are the two asterisks a typo?
In appdata.xml, project license should be GPL-2.0+. Also can you add the OARS info: <content_rating type="oars-1.1"> <content_attribute id="violence-cartoon">moderate</content_attribute> </content_rating> Thanks for working on packaging this.
@Andrea: Updated. As for the double asterisk, well, I've been doing that for icons since always, but I see that a single asterisk works too, so I may change that if it's preferable. @Dennis: Thanks, I've changed that in the AppData file. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/seahorse-adventures-1.2-1/seahorse-adventures.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/seahorse-adventures-1.2-1/seahorse-adventures-1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44324597
Changed to using fc-match for finding fonts, instead of specifying hard-coded paths. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/seahorse-adventures-1.2-2/seahorse-adventures.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/seahorse-adventures-1.2-2/seahorse-adventures-1.2-2.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44664197
rpmlint spelling errors are incorrect. The text is fine. I'm correcting the fsf address in the repository. Is it alright to leave that as is for now and have it fixed in the next release? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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]: 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 30720 bytes in 5 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 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]: 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: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [x]: %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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: seahorse-adventures-1.2-2.fc33.noarch.rpm seahorse-adventures-1.2-2.fc33.src.rpm seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scroller -> stroller, scrolled, scroll er seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyweek -> weekly seahorse-adventures.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/seahorse-adventures/LICENSE.txt seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/seahorse-adventures/data/themes/default/Vera.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera-sans-fonts/Vera.ttf seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/seahorse-adventures/data/themes/gray/Vera.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera-sans-fonts/Vera.ttf seahorse-adventures.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/seahorse-adventures/lib/pgu/LICENSE.txt seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary seahorse-adventures seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/seahorse-adventures.desktop seahorse-adventures seahorse-adventures.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scroller -> stroller, scrolled, scroll er seahorse-adventures.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyweek -> weekly seahorse-adventures.src:42: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 42, tab: line 41) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scroller -> stroller, scrolled, scroll er seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyweek -> weekly seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.imitationpickles.org/barbie/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> seahorse-adventures.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/seahorse-adventures/LICENSE.txt seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/seahorse-adventures/data/themes/default/Vera.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera-sans-fonts/Vera.ttf seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/seahorse-adventures/data/themes/gray/Vera.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera-sans-fonts/Vera.ttf seahorse-adventures.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/seahorse-adventures/lib/pgu/LICENSE.txt seahorse-adventures.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary seahorse-adventures 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
As far as I recall, the guidelines say that in case of an incorrect FSF address, it's only necessary to notify upstream. Seeing how you're the upstream, I guess we can agree that upstream is aware of the issue. ;)
Submitted a releng ticket requesting unretiring: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9475
FEDORA-2020-73ada0e92a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-73ada0e92a
FEDORA-2020-73ada0e92a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-73ada0e92a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-73ada0e92a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-73ada0e92a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.