Spec URL: http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng.spec SRPM URL: http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng-1.0.1-24.fc34.src.rpm Description: This package was retired in Fedora 34 and Rawhide, so I want to resurrect it and start maintaining it. The RPM is based on the Fedora 33 RPM, plus one additional patch that I created in order for the package to compile with Lua 5.4. I've also done koji scratch builds of the new package on f34 and rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66893530 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66893533 The game also includes another package: fillets-ng-data, which contains the game data and which also needs to be unretired, but it compiles on Fedora 34 and Rawhide without changes. Fedora Account System Username: nickysn
> Source0: http://downloads.sf.net/fillets/fillets-ng-%{version}.tar.gz This can be switched to https. > %build > %configure --datadir=%{_datadir}/fillets-ng > %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} 1. Macro forms of system executables are discouraged. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros 2. make was removed from the buildroot, starting in F34. You'll need to a add a BuildRequires: for it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/appstream-util Prefer %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin here, or just change this to "BuildRequires: libappstream-glib". > %{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications > ... > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata Please choose either %{buildroot} or ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} and stick to it. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_using_buildroot_and_optflags_vs_rpm_build_root_and_rpm_opt_flags > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata > cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata/fillets.appdata.xml Prefer "%{_metainfodir}" over "%{_datadir}/appdata". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
Ok, changes applied, spec file updated: http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng.spec New SRPM: http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng-1.0.1-25.fc34.src.rpm
Oops, forgot the first comment (switching the source to https). Will do that and update spec and SRPM again.
Ok, also changed Source0 to https. Spec and SRPMs uploaded, same files as my previous post: http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng.spec http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng-1.0.1-25.fc34.src.rpm
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #1) > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/appstream-util > Prefer %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin here Actually, you shouldn't. There is no guideline about this yet unfortunately, but the consensus seems to be that stuff that you actually *package* should use %{_bindir}, but stuff that you *use* should use /usr/bin, because that is what is on $PATH.
Hmm, I have replaced it with libappstream-glib, which avoids both %{_bindir} and /usr/bin. I don't know whether that's preferred or not.
That'll work as well (unless /usr/bin/appstream-util moves between different packages frequently).
- Document the patches: why are they needed/what do they do? Patch0: fillets-ng-0.8.1-gcc43.patch # http://sourceforge.net/p/fillets/bugs/7/ Patch1: fillets-ng-1.0.1-lua-5.2.patch Patch2: fillets-ng-1.0.1-lua-5.4.patch - make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} -> %make_install - %{__mkdir_p} -> mkdir -p - %{__install} -> install
- Package is not installable DEBUG util.py:444: Error: DEBUG util.py:444: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:444: - nothing provides fillets-ng-data >= 1.0.1-4 needed by fillets-ng-1.0.1-25.fc35.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:446: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) - Escape macros in changelog (with two %%) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fillets-ng See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 217 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/fillets-ng/review-fillets- ng/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. [-]: 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 122880 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]: 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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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. [!]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fillets-ng-1.0.1-25.fc35.x86_64.rpm fillets-ng-debuginfo-1.0.1-25.fc35.x86_64.rpm fillets-ng-debugsource-1.0.1-25.fc35.x86_64.rpm fillets-ng-1.0.1-25.fc35.src.rpm fillets-ng.src:120: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} fillets-ng.src:121: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_metainfodir} fillets-ng.src:121: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_datadir} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Package fillets-ng-data can be rebuild from the last git version no changes needed (mentioned already by Nikolay in the original request). Together with renewed fillets-ng it is working fine.
Ok, applied suggested changes. http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng.spec http://nikolov.io/rpm-review/fillets-ng/fillets-ng-1.0.1-26.fc34.src.rpm As mentioned previously, the fillets-ng-data can be built without changes. Should I file a separate review request for it?
You can unretire fillets-ng-data without a package review but you need to move quickly, as it will be retired for 8 weeks in less than a week. I recommend getting it re-reviewed anyway, just to make sure it's in good shape.
Ok, filed a review request for the data package in rhbz#1962864.
Package approved.
Closing this since the package was un-retired successfully. https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10124