SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/monsterz/monsterz.spec SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/monsterz/monsterz-0.7.1-24.fc32.src.rpm Description: Monsterz is a little arcade puzzle game, similar to the famous Bejeweled or Zookeeper. The goal of the game is to create rows of similar monsters, either horizontally or vertically. The only allowed move is the swap of two adjacent monsters, on the condition that it creates a row of three or more. When alignments are cleared, pieces fall from the top of the screen to fill the board again. Chain reactions earn you even more points. This was removed from Fedora in f32 due to Python 2 being dropped; a user has provided a Python 3 patch.
- Split the /usr/share/%{name} to a separate noarch data subpackage - %ifarch-applied-patch: A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied on all architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code patch to be effective only on a given arch. The arch detection should be included within the patch code. Something based on is_64bits = sys.maxsize > 2**32 as described in https://docs.python.org/3/library/platform.html - Why 2755 for the binary? is setgid really necessary? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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", "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/monsterz/review- monsterz/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]: 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. [x]: 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 3 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]: 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 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). [?]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 2590720 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: monsterz-0.7.1-24.fc33.x86_64.rpm monsterz-debuginfo-0.7.1-24.fc33.x86_64.rpm monsterz-debugsource-0.7.1-24.fc33.x86_64.rpm monsterz-0.7.1-24.fc33.src.rpm monsterz.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/monsterz games 2755 monsterz.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/monsterz 2755 monsterz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary monsterz monsterz.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch1: %{name}-0.7.1-64bitfix.patch 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/monsterz/monsterz.spec SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/monsterz/monsterz-0.7.1-25.fc32.src.rpm Fixed the 64-bit patch. The data package was intentionally merged back in in 2008, and the total size is less than 2 MB. I don't think it's needed. The setguid binary is for the shared score file.
Package approved.
Thank you!
FEDORA-2020-9500fa522d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9500fa522d
FEDORA-2020-9500fa522d 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-9500fa522d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9500fa522d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-9500fa522d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.