Bug 2008736 - Review Request: pigeonascent - Take care of your own pigeon as they fight
Summary: Review Request: pigeonascent - Take care of your own pigeon as they fight
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Sandro Mani
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2021-09-29 03:20 UTC by Dennis Payne
Modified: 2021-12-17 23:01 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
If this bug requires documentation, please select an appropriate Doc Type value.
Last Closed: 2021-12-17 23:01:41 UTC
Type: ---
manisandro: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dennis Payne 2021-09-29 03:20:09 UTC
Spec URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/pigeonascent/pigeonascent.spec
SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/pigeonascent/pigeonascent-1.5.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
Take care of your own pigeon as they fight increasingly stronger foes, and
then facing the legendary Pigeon God at the end… can you keep death far from
your bird?

Fedora Account System Username:dulsi

Comment 1 Dennis Payne 2021-09-29 03:24:07 UTC
The creator of the game did not package the source code. I packaged the git files based on the release date of the 1.5.2 release.

Comment 3 Sandro Mani 2021-11-20 06:47:19 UTC
- Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Could update to 1.5.4

Please change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} when importing. Approved.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[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.
[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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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: 2.1.0
checks: 31, packages: 1

======================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =======================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
rpmlint: 2.1.0
checks: 31, packages: 1

pigeonascent.noarch: W: no-documentation
pigeonascent.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/pigeonascent.desktop godot-runner
======================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =======================================================

Source checksums
http://www.identicalsoftware.com/pigeonascent/pigeonascent-1.5.2.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cb530893c27d57fa2c8854c70945a278dccedfecb6b502b6e97f5512a1fbca62
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb530893c27d57fa2c8854c70945a278dccedfecb6b502b6e97f5512a1fbca62

pigeonascent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2008736
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Python, fonts, R

Comment 5 Igor Raits 2021-11-21 16:57:16 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pigeonascent

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.