Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec SRPM URL: http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.2.1-1.bog9.src.rpm Description: Cave9 is a gravity cave-exploration game.
That may be a problem with the font file, the font used by the game is free for personal and non-commercial uses. Since this is incompatible with fedora guidelines, the font is not bundled in the package. The problem is that since the font file is in the pristine source of the game it gets into the src.rpm file. Not sure if this is a problem or not. Also to change the font I used an already installed font, linked to the position that the game search for the font file and putted the font file as a dependency. Not sure if this is the best way (maybe a patch in the game should be better?).
My packages are revisioned using git at gitorious: http://git.gitorious.org/specs-for-fedora/mainline.git
I submitted for revision. Now this package is honouring fedora compiler flags and has a desktop file. The new spec and srpm files are : http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.2.1-2.bog9.src.rpm
(Removing needsponsor: I am sponsoring the submitter)
Victor, are you still interested in this package? If so I will try to review this package.
Yes! :-) But let me do a clean-up first, I think the upstream have a data package that fits better on free distribution. The font on this package is not free, and even though I have removed it from the rpm file, the source package still has it.
Any updates here?
Not yet, I am in contact with the upstream developers, they seem to have a version of the data that is completely free, so I am waiting to package that data instead of the one packaged here that has a font that is non-free.(*) The non-free font now does not get into the final package, but it does shows in the src package, since it is in the pristine data-package. Since I am not lawyer I can't know if this is okay or not, but my common sense says that it is not and a free font is better anyway. I will talk to Rodolfo, the mainstream developer, today if this don't walk I will package a set of free data, that I was making.
Finally!! Development, there are a new version of the srpm and spec file with the verision 0.3 that cointains free data. :) the location of the new packages are the following: http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.3-1.bog9.src.rpm http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec
For 0.3-1: * Summary - I think the current Summary is not good sentence to explain this package shortly... * License - The codes used in cave9_src-0.3.tgz are actually under GPLv3+ (although COPYING.txt shows LGPLv3...) - The data files in cave9_data-4.tgz are licensed under CC-BY, CC-BY-SA. So the License tag must be "GPLv3+ and CC-BY and CC-BY-SA". * BuildRequires - This srpm uses desktop-file-install so "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" is missing. * sourceURL - Source0,1 must be written with full URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * Macros - Use macros for standard directories. For example /usr/bin must be %{_bindir} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros * Timestamps - When using "install" or "cp" commands, add "-p" option to keep timestamps on installed files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps * Documents - data/README.txt in cave9_data-4.tgz contains the needed license information of data tarball so this file must be added to %doc. ! Question - Is it possible to create a seperate srpm for hud.ttf font? (do you know where hud.ttf is originally distributed?) Currently Fedora strongly suggests not to package bundled fonts: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages
Victor, any updates?
Setting NEEDINFO; I will close this soon if there is no further response.
Sorry for the delay, I didn't have noticed your comments until that last one. :-P I made all the changes you have stated. For the "font" I don't know how I would do it, the website of the font author is a flash-only-mess, I really hate those sites, and don't have a download link for the font it self. But even if there were, the font was altered by the author of the game to include numbers. So as far as I know there is no upstream release of this font. But I do understand the need for a separated package, so I will email the author that knows the designer that made the font so we can figure something out. I would suggest to bundle at first with the font, and later when we complete the font package change this one to use the former. the new packages are at the same place as usual : http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.3-2.bog9.src.rpm
Mamoru, did you want to take this one?
(In reply to comment #14) > Mamoru, did you want to take this one? If you want to review this, I would appreciate it.
Unfortunately I have no way to test this; it doesn't over a remote X connection. I got someone on IRC to test it and it works fine. I get the following from rpmlint: cave9.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/cave9 0775 This doesn't happen in the buildsys so it must be some weirdness with my local setup, but you really should force the permissions just in case, either by using install -p -m 755 or by running chmod manually. You need to document which parts of the package are under which licenses. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios for some suggestions on how to go about doing this. It should be sufficient to indicate that the code is GPLv3+ and the licenses for the data are indicated in data_README.txt. Also, you are missing an "and Public Domain" for the NASA-produced sounds. %description is a complete sentence and should end with a period. * source files match upstream: 89a1ef99f2399bf7638b25ce4b51c5c088e01c29bc407eab689ccbb39c5b8d39 cave9_data-4.tgz 569d311b4f02d3b25ed98051b752bb3606fc243f0f1a7a0c8901c4569eceb11f cave9_src-0.3.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description needs a trailing period. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field missing "and Public Domain". * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: cave9 = 0.3-2.fc10 cave9(x86-64) = 0.3-2.fc10 = dejavu-fonts libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_image-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) * %check is not present; no way to test this automatically. Testing indicates that it works fine. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X error in file permissions. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. * desktop files valid and installed properly.
I made the required changes, I wasn't experiencing the mode problem for here my binaries were correctly setted to 755, but as you said, better safe then sorry. :-) specs and source rpm at the same bat-place : http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.3-3.bog9.src.rpm http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec
Yes, this one looks fine. I still haven't been able to determine why I and a few others see these issues in their personal mock builds but most people don't. Anyway, this looks fine now; the permissions are good and rpmlint is silent. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: Cave9 Short Description: 3d game of cave exploration Owners: bogado Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
The package name is 'cave9' right, not 'Cave9' ? cvs done with that change.
Is there any reason this hasn't been pushed out yet? I only see it in rawhide, with an update for f9 in testing (and nothing for f10).
The reason is probably my "newbieness", I thought I already made a build for testing on the F10 branch. I will check again, now. :-)
I don't have access to the build system right now, I will do it as soon as I can build it.
I'm happy to help you through the process if you need it; just contact me via email or find me on IRC in #fedora-devel.
I had already built it, but I think the process of publishing the update had failed then, I thought then that this was because F10 was in a freeze then and that it would "automagicaly" be published afterward. I was, obviously mistaken, but now I already pushed the update into testing for F10. I guess that from now on all is automatic, isn't?