Spec URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/alchemyquest/alchemyquest.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/alchemyquest/alchemyquest-0.5.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Alchemy Quest is a new reflection game which looks like classic falling block games but where you can take your time. Be a crazy alchemist and try to make new objects from those you get from the sky. Fedora Account System Username: dulsi
I'm planning on making a new release of Alchemy Quest before the game is added to Fedora. It needs icons for Alchemy Quest and a desktop file. I'll move the appdata.xml files into the project as well. Just looking for some additional packaging feedback before this is done.
Hi Dennis, Quick review, based in part on what I've seen when trying to adapt the openalchemist spec, like you did. Excuse the rough list below, rather short on time to make it into a nicer shape now. Issues: - File conflicts with openalchemist, it would be cleaner to use %{datadir}/alchemyquest rather than %{datadir/openalchemist}, which needs to be changed upstream. - A lot of s/openalchemist/alchemyquest/ needs to be done in the spec. - I think providing 2 .desktop files, icons, etc.., one for alchemyquest and one for openalchemist, would help transitioning from openalchemist to alchemyquest. - If you add the /usr/bin/openalchemist symlink, missing Obsoletes/Provides for openalchemist. Minor nits: - Indent on the BR: make (which comes from the openalchemist spec, I know ;-)) - Spurious wildcard in %files for appdata and desktop file (from openalchemist too) - Sort BR: Regards, Xavier
Minor question: Can you have two appdata files in a single rpm? Would it should the both in Gnome Software? If you installed one, it would install both?
I'm not very familiar with appdata, but I think it should work with either one file for alchemyquest and another for openlchemist or only one for alchemyquest. In the later case, it might be possible to have a subsection for openalchemist. The upstream doc for appdata is here, shall you want to dig deeper: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/dulsi/alchemyquest/-/raw/master/alchemyquest.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/alchemyquest/alchemyquest-0.5.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
- Obsoletes/Provides need to be versioned https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages - Add a comment over the openalchemist symlink creation for clarity - Split long desktop-file-install lines - The appdata files need to be validated https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage - Spurious wildcard in the appdata line for alchemyquest in %files - Nitpick, add a second blank line between the %install and %files sections
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/dulsi/alchemyquest/-/raw/master/alchemyquest.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/alchemyquest/alchemyquest-0.5.2-2.fc34.src.rpm
Sorry for the late answer... - The Obsoletes/Provides are still not correct. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages Should be: Obsoletes : openalchemist < 0.4-34 Provides: openalchemist = 0.4-34 - Add a comment on top of the openalchemist/alchemyquest symlink Something like: # Running alchemyquest through an openalchemist symlink will launch the game # in openalchemist mode w/o needing a command line option. - Source0: line could be shortened to: Source0: %{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tgz - Add a comment on top of License: to explain which part belongs to which license. - The build succeeded on F34, but failed on Rawhide, you should probably take a look. - fedora-review is also complaining about the size of the data and suggests a NoArch sub-package for that. I feel this is overkill for less than 10 MB, do as you see fit.
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/dulsi/alchemyquest/-/raw/master/alchemyquest.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/alchemyquest/alchemyquest-0.5.2-3.fc34.src.rpm I've left it as a single file. I tried building on rawhide and it worked fine for me. (Well I had to boot with a F34 kernel because rawhide wasn't booting.)
Again, sorry for the very late answer. The only remaining nitpick from rpmlint is about a missing man page. Maybe you can add one upstream ? There's probably not much to document but the --openalchemist command line option. $ rpmlint alchemyquest alchemyquest.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alchemyquest alchemyquest.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openalchemist 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Package is APPROVED. There was an unrelated issue building with Rawhide, so I've used F35 instead. Let me know once this is build so I can retire openalchemist in F35 and Rawhide. 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]: 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", "GNU General Public License". 957 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1956580-alchemyquest/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 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 does not use a name that already exists. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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 10332160 bytes in /usr/share alchemyquest-0.5.2-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm:10332160 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [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: alchemyquest-0.5.2-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm alchemyquest-debuginfo-0.5.2-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm alchemyquest-debugsource-0.5.2-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm alchemyquest-0.5.2-3.fc35.src.rpm alchemyquest.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alchemyquest alchemyquest.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openalchemist 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: alchemyquest-debuginfo-0.5.2-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://identicalsoftware.com/alchemyquest//alchemyquest-0.5.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 46d02e0d465ab2dee783d516b46ec7c491987c00a74822c43a86572fb7dcb359 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 46d02e0d465ab2dee783d516b46ec7c491987c00a74822c43a86572fb7dcb359 Requires -------- alchemyquest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libSDL2_mixer-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.76.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgamerzilla.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libzip.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) alchemyquest-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): alchemyquest-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- alchemyquest: alchemyquest alchemyquest(x86-64) application() application(alchemyquest.desktop) application(openalchemist.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(alchemyquest.metainfo.xml) metainfo(openalchemist.metainfo.xml) openalchemist alchemyquest-debuginfo: alchemyquest-debuginfo alchemyquest-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) alchemyquest-debugsource: alchemyquest-debugsource alchemyquest-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-35-x86_64 -b 1956580 Buildroot used: fedora-35-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Haskell, Perl, fonts, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/alchemyquest
Could you please build for F35 too so I can retire openalchemist which is FTBS on F35 ? Also you may add me as co-maintainer if you wish.