(This is my first package and I need a sponsor.) GNU FreeDink is composed of 3 packages: - game engine - game data - front-end Spec URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink.spec SRPM URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink-1.08.20080823-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Adventure and role-playing game (engine) Dink Smallwood is an adventure/role-playing game, similar to Zelda, made by RTsoft. Besides twisted humour, it includes the actual game editor, allowing players to create hundreds of new adventures called Dink Modules or D-Mods for short. GNU FreeDink is a new and portable version of the game engine, which runs the original game as well as its D-Mods, with close compatibility, under multiple platforms. Spec URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/dink-data.spec SRPM URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/dink-data-1.08-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Adventure and role-playing game (game data) Dink Smallwood is an adventure/role-playing game, similar to Zelda, made by RTsoft. Besides twisted humour, it includes the actual game editor, allowing players to create hundreds of new adventures called Dink Modules or D-Mods for short. This package contains architecture-independent data for the original game (except for non-free sounds). Spec URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/dfarc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/dfarc-2.99.20080823-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Frontend and .dmod installer for GNU FreeDink DFArc2 makes it easy to play and manage the Dink Smallwood game and it's numerous Dink Modules (or D-Mods). I'd like to get feedback about the packaging and eventally upload them! Legal: the Contribution is the following files: - freedink.spec - dfarc.spec - dink-data.spec - dink-data_README.Fedora Any other file is not part of the Contribution.
Hi: Please create new review requests for each srpm and add proper "Depends on/Blocks" dependency checker on the bug. Also, as you need sponsors, please make the submitted review requests block FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers.
> Please create new review requests for each srpm and add proper > "Depends on/Blocks" dependency checker on the bug. > > Also, as you need sponsors, please make the submitted review > requests block FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers. All done :)
Hello, Do you need anything else? I also uploaded an updated version (remove a dependency and amd64 fixes) Spec URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink.spec SRPM URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink-1.08.20080826-1.fc8.src.rpm
Well, * Same with bug 459916, the license of src/freedink_xpm.c is unclear. * This package installs LiberationSans-Regular.ttf. However this font is already provided by other Fedora package and shipping duplicate fonts like this way is not allowed. Please modify the source so that this package uses system widely provided fonts.
Hi, > * This package installs LiberationSans-Regular.ttf. However this font is > already provided by other Fedora package and shipping duplicate fonts like > this way is not allowed. Please modify the source so that this package uses > system widely provided fonts. FreeDink is using a precise version of LiberationSans-Regular.ttf (ttf-3) and the currently released version has a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458592 The latest version of the font also introduces some non-bug graphical differences (especially in the lowercase 'w' letter) and it's not decided whether we'll upgrade yet. So currently it is important that FreeDink uses the font it ships with, as it isn't available from the system. For the 32x32 icon, I'll check with Seth next time I discuss game data with him. I'm currently searching or creating replacements for the game data sounds and music that weren't freed, and preparing a new release that can use them. This will take a few days. Cheers,
(In reply to comment #5) > Hi, > > > * This package installs LiberationSans-Regular.ttf. However this font is > > already provided by other Fedora package and shipping duplicate fonts like > > this way is not allowed. Please modify the source so that this package uses > > system widely provided fonts. > > FreeDink is using a precise version of LiberationSans-Regular.ttf (ttf-3) and > the currently released version has a bug > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458592 > > The latest version of the font also introduces some non-bug graphical > differences (especially in the lowercase 'w' letter) and it's not decided > whether we'll upgrade yet. In such case Fedora Liberation fonts must be fixed and we still don't approve this case.
Hi, > In such case Fedora Liberation fonts must be fixed and we still don't approve > this case. I think there is a misunderstanding: I'm saying 2 things: - there was a bug which I reported and that is _fixed_ in a pre-10 version; this means that the included Font is necessary for any Fedora < 10 package, otherwise there's a nasty display bug. But this is not so much relevant in this particular sponsor request - just an example of when this can be necessary. - I'm also saying that the new version of the font is essentially a different font, with a different look, and that Fedora does not provide the old version. Are you saying that you want to change the game font just because Fedora does not package the upstream font? Nonetheless, FreeDink will probably upgrade. Which raises a more technical question: > Please modify the source so that this package uses > system widely provided fonts. Is there a _standard_ path to look for fonts? Fedora installs liberation-fonts in /usr/share/fonts/liberation/ and Debian installs ttf-liberation in /usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-liberation/, namely. Is there a portable way to look for a particular font location? Cheers.
(In reply to comment #7) > - there was a bug which I reported and that is _fixed_ in a pre-10 version; > this means that the included Font is necessary for any Fedora < 10 package, You must ask the font maintainer to push the fixed font to F-9/8 repository in that case... > - I'm also saying that the new version of the font is essentially a different > font, with a different look, and that Fedora does not provide the old version. If the old font package is unavoidable for this package, you must submit a review request for the old font package with enough rationale (like compat-foo library package) and make the font imported into Fedora in a proper way: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle > Is there a _standard_ path to look for fonts? Fedora installs liberation-fonts > in /usr/share/fonts/liberation/ and Debian installs ttf-liberation in > /usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-liberation/, namely. Is there a portable way to > look for a particular font location? I don't know well. I guess with some proper way generally knowing the location of fonts should not be needed (because one of the packages I maintain exactly do it), however I don't know the way (I guess functions in cairo or pango will do this)
I implemented the new dependency scheme: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink.spec This spec files contains 2 packages (freedink and freedink-engine, mainly because I couldn't make a source-less 'freedink' meta-package). I have a problem though: the debug files are in freedink-debuginfo-1.08.20080914-1.fc8.i386.rpm rather than freedink-engine-debuginfo-1.08.20080914-1.fc8.i386.rpm :/ Do you know how to fix this?
Hi Sylvain, I just stumbled over freedink and I think you are doing a good job with packaging and a great job with replacing all the non free resources! So I would like to review this package and sponsor you. But not right now I'm afraid as I'm leaving to go to the Linux Plumbers Conference. I'll try to think of doing this when I'm back (in the weekend) but I'll probably forget. So if you haven't heared anything from me in 1 1/2 weeks, please ping me (private mail or add a note to this bugzilla ticket).
Hans, I am already watching or review 3/3 of freedink related packages submitted by Sylvain.
(In reply to comment #9) > the debug files are in > freedink-debuginfo-1.08.20080914-1.fc8.i386.rpm rather than > freedink-engine-debuginfo-1.08.20080914-1.fc8.i386.rpm :/ > Do you know how to fix this? It is normal. By the way would you also provide your srpm? Also, please remove suse related parts.
Hi, Too bad the debug info can't be added to the -engine package. The SRPMS are in the same directory: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/ More precisely: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink-1.08.20080914-1.fc8.src.rpm http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/dfarc-3.1.20080914-1.fc8.src.rpm http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink-data-1.08.20080914-1.fc8.src.rpm For the suse parts, I maintain the spec file for both distros, so it would be slower and error-prone to split and duplicate them, unless there's a problem that I didn't see.
> http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/dfarc-3.1.20080914-1.fc8.src.rpm Hmm, that's a mistake in my build. The right one is: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink-dfarc-3.1.20080914-1.fc8.src.rpm
Would you write the URLs of srpm on the each corresponding review request? Otherwise it is hard to find out if each srpm is updated or not on each review request.
(In reply to comment #13) > For the suse parts, I maintain the spec file for both distros, so it would be > slower and error-prone to split and duplicate them, unless there's a problem > that I didn't see. Please remove suse part. I know some other persons who maintain there packages on other distributions. There are (and will be) many distro-specific rpm writting issues on Fedora and leaving that information which are specific to SUSE or so which is never used on Fedora just leaves the spec file less readable.
Once setting FE-Legal until the license issue of src/freedink_xpm.c is clarified.
Hi, Here's a new release: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink.spec http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink-1.08.20080920-1.src.rpm - opensuse parts removed (for reference: sed '/%if 0%{?suse_version}/,/%endif/d' < freedink.spec) - icon replaced
Removing FE-Legal
For 1.08.20080920-1: * Dependency between subpackages - Generally speaking, dependencies between packages generated from the same srpm must be EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific. (i.e. freedink must have "freedink-engine = %{version}-%{release}) * %fedora_version - is not defined. Perhaps you want to use %{?fedora}. * BuildRequires - build.log shows: ---------------------------------------------------- 124 checking for help2man... 125 no 126 configure: WARNING: You need to install help2man ---------------------------------------------------- Perhaps "BuildRequires: help2man" is needed. * Timestamps - Please consider to use ---------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" ---------------------------------------------------- to keep timestamps as much as possible. This method usually works for Makefiles generated from recent autotools * Desktop files - must be treated by desktop-file-{install,validate}: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage By the way I tried to play freedink but my mouse pointer does not seem to be recognized.
Hi, I've got a statement of intent from Seth which clarifies the icon license: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-freedink/2008-09/msg00008.html Is it good enough? I'll post a new .spec soon, I already fixed a few things common with dfarc.
(In reply to comment #21) > Hi, > > I've got a statement of intent from Seth which clarifies the icon license: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-freedink/2008-09/msg00008.html > > Is it good enough? Yes, thanks for asking to upstream.
(In reply to comment #20) > For 1.08.20080920-1: > > * Dependency between subpackages > - Generally speaking, dependencies between packages generated from > the same srpm must be EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific. > (i.e. freedink must have "freedink-engine = %{version}-%{release}) OK, fixed. I have a question: the 'freedink' package is built as 'i386' instead of 'noarch' (E: no-binary). I couldn't find a way to use a different BuildArch for the 2 packages though. > * %fedora_version > - is not defined. Perhaps you want to use %{?fedora}. Yes indeed. (I had copied this one from a .spec from another project, but it was actually meant for the opensuse build service, with other variables) > * BuildRequires > - build.log shows: > ---------------------------------------------------- > 124 checking for help2man... > 125 no > 126 configure: WARNING: You need to install help2man > ---------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps "BuildRequires: help2man" is needed. I clarified this in Git, it's a developer tool. The build system takes care of pregenerating man pages to avoid the 'help2man' dependency. > * Timestamps > - Please consider to use > ---------------------------------------------------- > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" > ---------------------------------------------------- > to keep timestamps as much as possible. This method > usually works for Makefiles generated from recent > autotools Did so. > * Desktop files > - must be treated by desktop-file-{install,validate}: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage Done too. > By the way I tried to play freedink but my mouse pointer does not > seem to be recognized. Hmmm, is there anything special about your mouse? Is it under X11? You mean you can't move the mouse in the intro screen, is that right? I didn't have this problem yet, either it's a SDL bug, either it's the way I continuously recenter the mouse to get relative motions without letting the mouse get out of the window. Here are the new files: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora-review/freedink.spec http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora-review/freedink-1.08.20080920-1.fc8.src.rpm
Please change the release number every time you modify your spec file to avoid confusion. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes
Also please write in %changelog what you modified even during review request.
http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora-review/freedink.spec http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora-review/freedink-1.08.20080920-2.fc8.src.rpm
Rebuild failed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=841506 ! build.log shows some stange error comment: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=841508&name=build.log -------------------------------------- ENTER do(['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bs --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/freedink.spec'], False, '/var/lib/mock/dist-f10-build-261193-47237/root/', None, 86400, True, 0, 101, 102, None, logger=<mock.trace_decorator.getLog object at 0x2b90b825bf90>) Executing command: ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bs --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/freedink.spec'] /etc/profile: line 42: /bin/hostname: No such file or directory error: line 67: second %install -------------------------------------- Perhaps this is because %install in comment is not protected by %% properly (see my comment: bug 459916 comment 19) Some quick note (I have not checked yet because the srpm does not build) * EVR dependency -------------------------------------- Requires: freedink-engine=%{version}-%{release} freedink-dfarc -------------------------------------- - This will make freedink require the rpm named "freedink-engine=1.08.20080920-2.fc10" (then cannot be installed), i.e. spaces needed between equality. * update-desktop-database - is needed when desktop files contains MimeType information (i.e. MimeType=application/x-dmod; like freedink-dfarc.desktop).
(In reply to comment #23) > I have a question: the 'freedink' package is built as 'i386' instead of > 'noarch' (E: no-binary). I couldn't find a way to use a different BuildArch for > the 2 packages though. Please ignore this rpmlint for this case.
Here's the updated package: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora-review/freedink.spec http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora-review/freedink-1.08.20080920-3.fc8.src.rpm * Wed Sep 24 2008 Sylvain Beucler <beuc> - 1.08.20080920-3 - Don't use 'update-desktop-database' for simple desktop files - Fix unescaped macros in comments - Use spaces around '=' in version-specific dependency
(Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 459916)
(In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #20) I have a question: the 'freedink' package is built as 'i386' instead of > 'noarch' (E: no-binary). I couldn't find a way to use a different BuildArch for > the 2 packages though. - Currently there is no way to avoid this (so just ignore). > > By the way I tried to play freedink but my mouse pointer does not > > seem to be recognized. > > Hmmm, is there anything special about your mouse? Is it under X11? > You mean you can't move the mouse in the intro screen, is that right? - Well, after some try I found that this was not a problem (in the intro screen the mouse is working) Now this package can be approved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- This package (freedink) is APPROVED by mtasaka -----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks! On with the cvs request. CVS maintainers, I would be glad if you could create this module: New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: freedink Short Description: Adventure and role-playing game Owners: beuc Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: beuc
cvs done.
I imported the package in CVS: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/freedink koji reported no errrors. I'm a bit puzzled about the inclusion status now, especially about Fedora 10 (which is in freeze). When will people be able to write "yum install freedink" ? :)
(In reply to comment #34) > I'm a bit puzzled about the inclusion status now, especially about Fedora 10 > (which is in freeze). Freeze is now over. > When will people be able to write "yum install freedink" ? :) Already in rawhide tree: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00019.html
By the way please rebuild your srpm also on F-9/8 and submit push requests on bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/
freedink-1.08.20080920-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freedink-1.08.20080920-4.fc9
freedink-1.08.20080920-4.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freedink-1.08.20080920-4.fc8
Thanks. Now closing. When you think the submitted packages can be moved to stable repository, please modify (edit) the request on bodhi.
freedink-1.08.20080920-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
freedink-1.08.20080920-4.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
freedink-debuginfo-1.08.20080914-1.fc8.i386.rpm is a package file for the FreeDink game and engine, specifically version 1.08.20080914, built for the Fedora 8 operating system. The package is for the i386 architecture, which is a 32-bit architecture used by many processors. The package is built to be installed on the Fedora 8 distribution. I've seen fix in one website will update here soon
The debuginfo in the package name indicates that this package contains debugging information that can be used to help troubleshoot issues with the program. This package is typically used by developers who are working on the program, or by others who are trying to understand or fix problems with the program. It may contains extra files like Symbol table, source code, and other debugging information. https://modyp.com/
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #1) > Hi: > > Please create new review requests for each srpm and add proper "Depends > on/Blocks" > dependency checker on the bug. > > Also, as you need sponsors, please make the submitted review requests block > FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers. creating new review requests for source RPMs (SRPMs) and adding proper dependency checker information (such as "Depends on" and "Blocks") to a bug report in the Freedink project. This process may involve creating separate review requests for each SRPM that is being submitted for review, and then adding the appropriate dependency information to the bug report. This would help ensure that all necessary dependencies are identified and addressed before the SRPM is approved for release. It's important to keep in mind that this is just my understanding of the request, and that for a more concrete answer, you should ask the person who maintains the Freedink project or the person who is familiar with the project's bug tracking system.