Spec URL: http://caillon.fedorapeople.org/gnome-hearts.spec SRPM URL: http://caillon.fedorapeople.org/gnome-hearts-0.2.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: An implementation of the classic hearts card game for the GNOME desktop, featuring configurable rulesets and editable computer opponents to satisfy widely diverging playing styles. Gnome Hearts is Free Software, released under the GNU General Public License and should be able to run on any computer that can run the GNOME desktop.
Bug 291741 was closed due to inactivity. I took richi's version at 0.2-3.svn163 and did my own package review of it before posting it, and this is the result.
*** Bug 291741 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Pardonez moi. First baby threw a wrench in the gears. Glad to hear it's coming, though.
For 0.2.1-1: * License - Please change the license tag to "GPLv2+ aned GFDL". * Document files under %{_datadir}/gnome/help/ are licensed under GFDL. * The rest parts are licensed under GPLv2+ * Documents - "COPYING" file is rather mandatory for %doc if it exists. * desktop-file-install - Please call desktop-file-install for installing desktop file. * Timestamps - I recommend to use ------------------------------------------------------ make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" ------------------------------------------------------ to keep timestamps on installed files. This method usually works for recent autotool-based Makefiles.
(In reply to comment #4) > For 0.2.1-1: > > * License > - Please change the license tag to "GPLv2+ aned GFDL". > * Document files under %{_datadir}/gnome/help/ are licensed > under GFDL. > * The rest parts are licensed under GPLv2+ > > * Documents > - "COPYING" file is rather mandatory for %doc if it > exists. Above two items OK. > > * desktop-file-install > - Please call desktop-file-install for installing desktop file. It is useless here. The app installs it for us. We should only use desktop-file-install for Fedora-managed specs, not for ones installed by the application. > > * Timestamps > - I recommend to use > ------------------------------------------------------ > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" > ------------------------------------------------------ > to keep timestamps on installed files. This method usually > works for recent autotool-based Makefiles. I recommend getting this fixed in autotools, and not tweaking packages.
(In reply to comment #5) > > * desktop-file-install > > - Please call desktop-file-install for installing desktop file. > > It is useless here. The app installs it for us. We should only use > desktop-file-install for Fedora-managed specs, not for ones installed by the > application. This is not. desktop-file-utils is used on Fedora packaging not only for installing desktop files but also for checking if installed desktop file meets freedesktop standards (i.e. if desktop-file-install (--delete-original, for example) rejects installed desktop files, it must be fixed).
If we want it to be validated, then we should run desktop-file-validate and stop pretending we need to install it. This way in case the desktop file ever stops being installed automatically, or gets installed into a different location, we also fail the build.
Then ask for fedora-packaing. Now this is a must.
I have no idea what that means.
Just look at the subsection "desktop-file-install usage" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and the MUST item of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Okay, are those the only things wrong with the spec?
(In reply to comment #11) > Okay, are those the only things wrong with the spec? Please also fix the issue below: (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > For 0.2.1-1: > > > > * License > > - Please change the license tag to "GPLv2+ aned GFDL". > > * Document files under %{_datadir}/gnome/help/ are licensed > > under GFDL. > > * The rest parts are licensed under GPLv2+ > > > > * Documents > > - "COPYING" file is rather mandatory for %doc if it > > exists. > > Above two items OK.
For reference, I raised comment 10 with FPC: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-April/msg00076.html
And fixed the license and copying file in the spec url. Those are very very minor issues and i'd prefer to start with a revision of 1 instead having to bump for that here. If you absolutely require a bump for some reason, i can create an srpm with a .fc10 disttag instead of .fc9
Does it mean that you want me to wait for FPC voting?
If you feel you cannot trust me to do the right thing based on the outcome of FPC, then yes please wait. If you feel you can trust me to do the right thing, then please approve with such a statement.
FPC passed my proposal on May 6, 2008 <https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-May/msg00637.html> and FESCo ratified it on May 8, 2008 <http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2008-05-08.html>
Would you update your srpm anyway as the last time I checked your srpm is more than 2 months?
(In reply to comment #18) > Would you update your srpm anyway as the last time I checked your > srpm is more than 2 months? as the last time I checked your srpm was more than 2 months ago?
It's current.
- Please also add "COPYING-DOCS" to %doc - Should desktop-file-validate be moved to %check? Other things seem okay. -------------------------------------------------------------- This package (gnome-hearts) is APPROVED by me --------------------------------------------------------------
ping?
ping again?
Okay, I'll add COPYING-DOCS and I'll investigate %check.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gnome-hearts Short Description: Hearts game for GNOME Owners: caillon Branches: F-8 F-9 Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
packages built, closing out.