Spec URL: http://home.zonnet.nl/jwrdegoede/xgalaga.spec SRPM URL: http://home.zonnet.nl/jwrdegoede/xgalaga-2.0.34-1.src.rpm Description: A clone of the classic game Galaga for the X Window System. Xgalaga is a space- invader like game with additional features to produce a more interesting game.
I'm getting a build error in mock during configure: checking for gcc... gcc checking whether the C compiler (gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fsigned-char -DXF86VIDMODE -lXxf86vm) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.65804 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.65804 (%build)
Well it works fine for me can you lift the actual gcc error from config.log that might help.
$ cat /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-x86_64-core/root/builddir/build/BUILD/xgalaga-2.0.34/config.log This file contains any messages produced by compilers while running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake. configure:564: checking host system type configure:588: checking for gcc configure:701: checking whether the C compiler (gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fsigned-char -DXF86VIDMODE -lXxf86vm) works configure:717: gcc -o conftest -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fsigned-char -DXF86VIDMODE -lXxf86vm conftest.c 1>&5 configure:714: warning: return type defaults to 'int' /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lXxf86vm collect2: ld returned 1 exit status configure: failed program was: #line 712 "configure" #include "confdefs.h" main(){return(0);}
* rpmlint output clean * Package meets Package Naming Guidelines * Spec filename matches base package %{name} * Package meets Packaging Guidelines * Package licensed with open source compatible license * License in spec matches actual license * License text included in %doc * Spec file written in American English * Spec file is legible * Sources match upstream 9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510 xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz 9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510 xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz * Package successfully compiles and builds on FC5 x86_64 O Package has all BR except libXxf86vm-devel which I needed to add for it to compile * Package does not have any locales * Package does not contain any shared library files * Package is not relocatable * Package owns all directories it creates * Package does not contain any duplicate files in %files * File permissions are set properly * Package contains proper %clean section * Macro usage consistant enough - I notice you use %{__sed}, but don't bother using %{__make} or %{__rm} etc.. * Package contains permissble content * Package does not contain large documentation to warrent a seperate package * Package does not contain header files, libraries or .pc files * Package does not contain any .so files * Package does not require or use a -devel package * Package does not contain any .la files * Package adds an appropriate .desktop entry * Package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages *** MUST *** - You MUST figure out why FC5 needs to add a BuildRequires of libXxf86vm-devel and why this is not needed for your build (presumably FC6) Non-blocking SHOULDs: - Be more consistant with macro usage, for example %{__sed}, but no %{__rm} etc. - I also prefer %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but that is a matter of preference. I just think spec files look cleaner when everything consistantly uses %{} format. So basically I'm saying you should use a clean more legible consistant style in your spec files, but I'm not going to say this is a blocker or should be fixed, just a suggestion. - Let me know that the name xgalaga isn't going to be a problem with Namco. I've heard the Lgames are not allowed because the names are too close to the original, is this going to be a problem? - Return the favor by reviewing some of my packages ;-)
One other minor thing I noticed: cat > README.fedora << EOF The latest Fedora xgalaga package also includes fullscreen support, start xgalaga with -window to get the old windowed behaviour. You can switch on the fly between window and fullscreen mode with alt+enter . EOF The word "behaviour" is not American English. It should be "behavior". In addition there should not be a space before the final period.
Chris and I had a private discussion about this by email because BZ was down, copy and pasting it here for future reference: --- Hi Chris, Bugzilla is down so I'm doing it this way. Thanks for the review. About the missing BR I failed to add that its needed for the devel branch too, things just worked on my system because I already had the needed devel-package installed. About the name, I wans't sure about this myself, so now I've changed the name to xgalaxy (googled, not taken already). New SRPM and spec are at: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ Regards, Hans --- Christopher Stone wrote: > okay ill take a look at this tomorrow, been really busy today and > didnt get the chance to look at it. > > Do you think the name is going to be a problem? I'd prefer xgalaga, > but then again, it's probably better to be safe than sorry. > The name is most likely not a problem, because the people with the rights to the original name probably don't care. xgalaga has existed under this name for a long time without trouble. Then again the name had both me and you worried and those are valid worries the name is a legal problem. Even if the other party _probably_ doesn't care it still is a legal issue. It is the _probably_ that scares me and untill the "upto now" part of upto now this hasn't been a problem. If the people with the rights to the name one day all of a sudden do start caring, or get a grudge against OSS we've a problem, which I would rather avoid. Since I've already done the hard work of renaming (and recreating the "logo") I think its best / safest to stick with the new name. Regards, Hans
New rpm is STILL missing libXxf86vm-devel.
Oops you're right, I did put adding it in the changelog, but I didn't actually do this. Fixed SRPM and spec are at: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/
Imported & Build, Thanks!
Fixing bug report summary.