Spec URL: http://www.hajnet.cz/soubory/vodovod/vodovod.spec.1.10 SRPM URL: http://www.hajnet.cz/soubory/vodovod/vodovod-1.10-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: A free cross-platform pipe connecting game. You get a limited number of pipes on each level and need to combine them to lead the water from the house at the top of the screen to the storage tank at the bottom. hi, I've found this one at the games wishlist, and it looks nice ... the game uses hardcoded paths, relative to the directory it is run in, it expects that the working directory contains the game data and that game settings and hiscores may be written in it, so during setup, the sources are patched to read data from %{_datadir}, and there is a wrapper script that starts the game in ~/.vodovod (hoping that it is able to do so, not checking for possible errors ... is that worth?)
the package builds fine on i386. i'm currently working on the review.
[OK] = ok, [XX] = fail, [NA] = doesn't apply, [ ] = not tested [OK] rpmlint passes [OK] package named according to Package Naming Guidelines [XX] spec file name matches base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec - vodovod.spec.0.10 was odd, not sure if that was just for your hosting or what [OK] package must meet Packaging Guidelines [OK] package must be licensed with Fedora approved license and meet Licensing Guidelines [OK] License field in spec file must match actual license [OK] 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 must be included in %doc [OK] spec file is written in American English [OK] spec file for the package is legible [OK] sources used to build package match upstream source, as provided in spec URL [OK] package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture [NA] if package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch [OK] all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires except for exceptions [NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [NA] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [NA] if the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [OK] package must own all directories that it creates [OK] package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing [OK] permissions on files must be set properly [OK] package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK] each package must consistently use macros [OK] package must contain code [NA] large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage - i thought at first that html/ should be *-doc, but it's only one file... [OK] if a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [NA] header files must be in a -devel package [NA] static libraries must be in a -static package [NA] packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability) [NA] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [NA] devel packages must require base package using fully versioned dependency [OK] packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [OK] packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [OK] packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [OK] each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK] all filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 [NA] if the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it [NA] description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available [OK] package builds in mock [OK] package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=392130 [OK] reviewer should test that the package functions as described [NA] if scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [NA] usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [NA] the placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg [NA] if the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself One problem found
I actually looked in the SRPM and the spec file was the correct name, so there are no visible problems with this package. ================================== approved ==================================
Ian, sorry. However this package contains a (maybe some) issue(s) which must be fixed before approving this package.
would you be willing to explain what exactly those issues are? i don't see 'em. did you see comment #3?
oh I remember what I was thinking -- line 4, summary: probably shouldn't contain the package name. also, should the comment in the .desktop file have a period at the end?
Created attachment 293826 [details] Patch to compile against g++43 (In reply to comment #2) > [OK] package must meet Packaging Guidelines Well, I know many reviewers uses check-list style like you. I don't object to it, however I always wonder what this "package must meet Packaging Guidelines" means on this check list. Actually http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines contains 40 items... Anyway: * This package does not build on dist-f9. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=392156 A proposed patch is attached. * On build fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored ("Compiler flags" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) Using -------------------------------------------------------------------- make %{?_smp_mflags} \ CC="%{__cxx} %{optflags}" -------------------------------------------------------------------- is good for this package. - Desktop icon must be updated ("GTK+ icon cache" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ) - And actually the description of this package "Vodovod -" is redundant.
> Well, I know many reviewers uses check-list style > like you. I don't object to it, however I always wonder > what this "package must meet Packaging Guidelines" means > on this check list. Actually > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines > contains 40 items... I shall keep that in mind. ;) Other than that I'll wait for an updated package.
(In reply to comment #2) > [XX] spec file name matches base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec > - vodovod.spec.0.10 was odd, not sure if that was just for your hosting or > what this is only a primitive VCS to be sure that the linked file does not change and so two people are not referring different state of things - as you noted in comment #3, I do not use the suffix for packaging (In reply to comment #6) > line 4, summary: probably shouldn't contain > the package name. ops, I've copied this and forgot about the rule > also, should the comment in the .desktop file have a period at the end? probably not, removing (In reply to comment #7) > * This package does not build on dist-f9. > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=392156 > A proposed patch is attached. thanks, included > * On build fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly > honored ("Compiler flags" of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) > Using > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > make %{?_smp_mflags} \ > CC="%{__cxx} %{optflags}" > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > is good for this package. well, the guidelines could be more verbose about this ... thanks, added > - Desktop icon must be updated ("GTK+ icon cache" of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ) thanks, included - once more, it could be mentioned within the guidelines (I'm KDE user, so ...) new version: http://www.hajnet.cz/soubory/vodovod/vodovod.spec.1.10-2 http://www.hajnet.cz/soubory/vodovod/vodovod-1.10-2.fc8.src.rpm
Good for me. I will leave the final judgment to Ian.
everything's good as far as i can see. === approved ===
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: vodovod Short Description: a pipe connecting game Owners: kvolny Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.