Bug 2129390 - Review Request: nibbles - A snake game written using C++, SDL2, and Opengl with 3D graphics
Summary: Review Request: nibbles - A snake game written using C++, SDL2, and Opengl wi...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jakub Kadlčík
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2022-09-23 14:56 UTC by Brigham Keys
Modified: 2023-10-01 21:05 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
ppisar: fedora-review?

Attachments (Terms of Use)
This is a new SRPM with all of Robert's suggestedchanges (1.25 MB, application/x-rpm)
2022-09-23 17:43 UTC, Brigham Keys
no flags Details
New SRPM that passes rpmlint (1.25 MB, application/x-rpm)
2022-09-23 18:05 UTC, Brigham Keys
no flags Details

Description Brigham Keys 2022-09-23 14:56:04 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bkeys/nibbles/fedora-37-ppc64le/04813230-nibbles/nibbles.spec
SRPM URL: https://bkeys.org/nibbles-1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description: Game I made in 2015 as my first stepping stones into OpenGL game development. It's a simple rendition of the classic arcade game nibbles. Collect the red fruit to increase your score while avoiding green pot obstacles.
Fedora Account System Username:bkeys

Comment 1 Brigham Keys 2022-09-23 14:57:54 UTC
I have added this package as a copr repo, and it has successfully built on all recent versions of Fedora and CentOS Stream. Here is the link:

Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2022-09-23 15:13:36 UTC
Thank you for your contribution! This is not a formal review, but some findings when having a very first look to it:

- Summary tag is too long and quoted
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description
- Description tag is quoted and shorter than summary
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description
- Source0 should use URL to upstream tarball
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
- Don't disable %debug_package
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/
- License tag doesn't use SPDX
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
- Use %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/
- COPYING listed in %doc and %license -> remove from %doc
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
- Requires tag seems to be unnecessary due to SONAME
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires

Hint: A possible future formal reviewer will follow these guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2022-09-23 15:18:23 UTC
Oh, according FAS, you are not a Fedora packager yet; setting FE-NEEDSPONSOR.

Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2022-09-23 15:19:42 UTC
Brigham, please also read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#requesting_sponsorship - thank you :)

Comment 5 Brigham Keys 2022-09-23 17:43:51 UTC
Created attachment 1913862 [details]
This is a new SRPM with all of Robert's suggestedchanges

This new SRPM builds successfully on all relevant platforms on copr

Comment 6 Brigham Keys 2022-09-23 18:05:20 UTC
Created attachment 1913864 [details]
New SRPM that passes rpmlint

Please ignore my previous srpm, it has a long description. This attachment is an SRPM that passes rpmlint entirely.

Comment 7 Jakub Kadlčík 2022-09-24 21:21:02 UTC
Thank you for the package Brigham,
and also for making the changes

> Created attachment 1913864 [details]
> New SRPM that passes rpmlint

Typically you should always post the updated package the same way you 
did in the bug description, i.e.

Spec URL: ...

There are tools like `fedora-review` that can parse the BZ comments,
find the newest package, download it, run some checks on it, and
make the reviewer's life easier.

> BuildRequires:  freeglut-devel SDL2-devel cmake gcc gcc-c++

This is fine, and I have no problem with this. Just from a personal
experience, I find it better to write each dependency on a new line,
like this:

    BuildRequires:  freeglut-devel
    BuildRequires:  SDL2-devel
    BuildRequires:  cmake 
    BuildRequires:  gcc
    BuildRequires:  gcc-c++

This way you can have as many dependencies as you need and you are not
limited by line length, and also it is much clearer in git diffs what
dependency was added and when.

But if you prefer the single-line format, that's fine as well. I just
wanted to make it known, that there is an alternative.

> %license COPYING

I am a bit uneasy that there are both LICENSE and COPYING files and
they are not the same (although they both appear to be GPLv3). Since
you are the upstream developer, I think you can easily fix this within
the project itself. Or I would just do 

    %license COPYING
    %license LICENSE

to install them both.

Otherwise, the package looks good to me.


Since this would be your first Fedora package, you will need to get
sponsored into the `packager' group before this package can be

I recently became a sponsor and I would like to sponsor you. That
would make it my responsibility to guide you through the processes that
you will do, and the tools that you will need as a package maintainer. I
would also be there to answer your packaging-related questions, or to
help you find somebody who knows the answers.

But before that, I should make sure that you will be able to fulfill
your package maintainer responsibilities

Please take a look here

I think the most beneficial option for you as a sponsoree would be reviewing
2-3 packages from somebody else. It will help you understand the
packaging guidelines better but at the same time, it will help
somebody else to get also their packages accepted to Fedora.

If you are interested, please ping me on #fedora-devel IRC, my nick is
FrostyX, or send me an email, and we can get started. I will explain
what is necessary as we go.

Comment 8 Package Review 2023-09-30 00:45:39 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Comment 9 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-10-01 21:05:21 UTC
> If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore

I am interested in reviewing this ticket but there is no response from the contributor.

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