Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/game-data-packager.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/game-data-packager-free-75-2.fc39.src.rpm Description: Various games are divided into two logical parts: engine and data. game-data-packager is a tool which builds .rpm files for game data which cannot be distributed (such as commercial game data). Fedora Account System Username: atim
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107022178
Work in progress. I would like to co-maintain this package with alexandre.detiste. Appreciate any help.
Hi, For completenes, I would add that Fedora already has similar, but different "AutoDownloader" script that is integrated/ support an handfull (so like 5-something) of packages, while game-data-packager support hundreds of games. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autodownloader -- I don't know what would be the difference of a "-free" version, the only version it didn't end up in Fedora proper before but in RPMfusion are those: - I was too lazy to follow the complete Fedora procedure - I met some nice RPMfusion contributor at Fosdem. So nothing is set in the stone and this package could at any time get better integrated in Fedora. Greetings
> I don't know what would be the difference of a "-free" version There few packages which not available in official Fedora repo: - steam - lha - unrar
- steam - lha - unrar These are optional dependencies evaluated at runtime, only relevant for some games.
(In reply to Alexandre Detiste from comment #5) Great, so look like we can easily package 'game-data-packager` for Fedora repos. It's also possible to maintain non-free version for RPM Fusion with the same SPEC file. Just changing conditional macros.
I have took a look into icons/ folder, and there are a lot of licenses for icons not contained in license tag. Also their text are not installed with the package. I don't think that is okay, even though that might create unusually long list. Especially for uncommon licenses this is a must. What is worse some are not present in allowed license list of fedora [1]. It seems to me licenses not already added need to be approved for inclusion in Fedora first. Which might be tiresome process, but I don't think there is a way around. List in LICENSES, which does not seems to be allowed: LicenseRef-CC-BY-SA-3.0-US.txt LicenseRef-LK-Avalon.txt LicenseRef-Tango-Public-Domain.txt LicenseRef-wikimedia-Public-Domain.txt If those would not be allowed, such content would have to be removed also from source archives. 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
Link to actual text of these licenses: https://salsa.debian.org/games-team/game-data-packager/-/tree/master/LICENSES
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - 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. Note: License file copyright is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-only and GPL-2.0-or-later'. Should be: 'GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later', but contain also all icons licenses. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: game-data-packager.spec should be game-data-packager-free.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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 20320 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/g/game-data-packager/game- data-packager_75.tar.xz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in doom2-masterlevels [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: version 76 is present [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define gitversion a6352918, %define gver .git%{gitdate}%{gitversion} [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2241961-game- data-packager/srpm-unpacked/game-data-packager.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: game-data-packager-free-75-2.fc40.noarch.rpm doom2-masterlevels-75-2.fc40.noarch.rpm game-data-packager-free-75-2.fc40.src.rpm ============================================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_q9mw3kl')] checks: 31, packages: 3 game-data-packager-free.src: E: invalid-spec-name game-data-packager-free.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/game-data-packager/game_data_packager/version.py /usr/share/game-data-packager/game_data_packager/gdp_launcher_version.py =============================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s ============================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 game-data-packager-free.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/game-data-packager/game_data_packager/version.py /usr/share/game-data-packager/game_data_packager/gdp_launcher_version.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Requires -------- game-data-packager-free (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(game-data-packager-free) python3-pyyaml doom2-masterlevels (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 gobject-introspection gtk4 python3-gobject-base Provides -------- game-data-packager-free: config(game-data-packager-free) game-data-packager-free doom2-masterlevels: application() application(net.debian.game_data_packager.doom2_masterlevels.desktop) doom2-masterlevels game-data-packager-free-runtime Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241961 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I am not sure of legality of this package. Except for downloading content otherwise unsuitable to be shipped in Fedora I do not see much added value. It seems to me when the data are exceptionally free indeed, then we have them already packaged and this is not needed. It seems to be it fits better into rpmfusion (or any other non-fedora provider), but maybe legal team would have different opinion.
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #7) > I have took a look into icons/ folder, and there are a lot of licenses for > icons not contained in license tag. Also their text are not installed with > the package. I don't think that is okay, even though that might create > unusually long list. Especially for uncommon licenses this is a must. > > What is worse some are not present in allowed license list of fedora [1]. It > seems to me licenses not already added need to be approved for inclusion in > Fedora first. > Which might be tiresome process, but I don't think there is a way around. > > List in LICENSES, which does not seems to be allowed: > LicenseRef-CC-BY-SA-3.0-US.txt > LicenseRef-LK-Avalon.txt > LicenseRef-Tango-Public-Domain.txt > LicenseRef-wikimedia-Public-Domain.txt > > If those would not be allowed, such content would have to be removed also > from source archives. > > 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ CC-BY-SA-3.0-US is possibly not in Fedora License Data because of an oversight; it should be submitted for review (if the submitter wishes to go ahead with trying to get this packaged) but would likely be classified as 'allowed-content'. The two public domain LicenseRefs would likely be allowed under the `LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain` umbrella category but would also have to be submitted for review. However, the license contained in `LicenseRef-LK-Avalon.txt` would probably be classified as "not-allowed". So at a minimum to get this packaged in Fedora the content covered by `LicenseRef-LK-Avalon` would have to be removed.