Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/lbrickbuster2.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/lbrickbuster2-2.6-0.9.beta7.fc9.src.rpm Description: The successor to LBrickBuster offers you a new challenge in more than 50 levels with loads of new bonuses (goldshower, joker, explosive balls, bonus magnet ...), maluses (chaos, darkness, weak balls, malus magnet ...) and special bricks (growing bricks, explosive bricks, regenerative bricks ...). If you are still hungry for more after that you can create your own levelsets with the integrated level editor.
+ for good, - for bad, ? for questionable MUST Items: ? rpmlint: lbrickbuster2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/lbrickbuster2 02551 lbrickbuster2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/lbrickbuster2 02551 + package named according to naming guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + packaging guidelines + license (GPLv2+) + license matches source files (I just checked game.c, assumed the rest are the same) + COPYING included in RPM + spec is in en_US + spec is quite legible + sources match upstream + compiles/builds on x86_64 + build dependencies listed in BR (tested on koji) + locales handled properly + if shared libraries, must call ldconfig (don't have any) + no Prefix: /usr + don't hostile takeover other packages' directories + no duplicate %files ? proper permissions on files (see rpmlint output above) + %clean section - consistent use of macros (you mix $VARIABLES and %{variables}) + package contains code and permissible content + no need for -doc + %doc doesn't affect runtime + no header files + no static libraries + no pkgconfig + no library files with suffixes + no devel package + no .la libtool archives + %{name}.desktop installed + package doesn't attempt to own other packages' files + %install cleans up build root + filenames are valid UTF8 SHOULD Items: + source includes license texts from upstream ? descriptions/summary don't contain non-English translations, but I doubt they are available + package builds in mock (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=484020) + package compiles into binary RPMs on all archs (see above) + package functions as described (it's fun :)) + no file dependencies Clean up the macros and assure me that the permissions are OK and I'll set fedora-review to +.
The executable should probably have 02755 perms rather than 02551.
(In reply to comment #1) > + for good, - for bad, ? for questionable > > MUST Items: > ? rpmlint: > lbrickbuster2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/lbrickbuster2 > 02551 > lbrickbuster2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/lbrickbuster2 > 02551 This is the same permission scheme the gnome-games package uses for sgid games games, and these are the permissions as used for this package by freshrpms for a long time, but I'm happy to change them to 02755 if people like that better (which will still make rpmlint complain btw) > - consistent use of macros (you mix $VARIABLES and %{variables}) Erm, no I don't atleast not in a way thats not allowed by the guidelines. The only $ variable I use is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, and I don't use %{buildroot} anywhere, so no mixing, the guidelines talk about using 2 different ways to access the _same_ variable. As for using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT versus %{buildroot}, the guidelines leave this up to the packager, and AFAIK most people prefer $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, that is for example which is used in the specfile templates which are part of rpmdevtools. > Clean up the macros I would love to, if you can tell me whats wrong exactly. > and assure me that the permissions are OK The permissions are OK.
The reason why ??1 permissions are frowned upon is that it doesn't make sense to read-protect an executable which can be easily obtained from any Fedora mirror. But rpmlint probably whines about any 2??? permission, it doesn't like setgid (but setgid games is normal for game packages, so the warning can be ignored).
(In reply to comment #4) > The reason why ??1 permissions are frowned upon is that it doesn't make sense > to read-protect an executable which can be easily obtained from any Fedora > mirror. But rpmlint probably whines about any 2??? permission, it doesn't like > setgid (but setgid games is normal for game packages, so the warning can be > ignored). Okay, I will fix the permissions before import. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: lbrickbuster2 Short Description: Brickbuster arcade game Owners: jwrdegoede Branches: F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: Yes
cvs done.
Thanks for the review! Imported and build, closing.
*** Bug 517466 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 629468 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***