SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/mock-results/tunneler-1.1.1-1.fc11.i386/tunneler.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/mock-results/tunneler-1.1.1-1.fc11.i386/tunneler-1.1.1-1.fc11.src.rpm logs: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/mock-results/tunneler-1.1.1-1.fc11.i386/ Description: A clone of legendary game made by Geoffrey Silverton in 1991. In the game two players using the same keyboard and the same screen each control an underground tank. Goal is to find and destroy the opponent's tank. Since only small part of the map is displayed on the split screen, you might actually have some searching to do.
Simple and neat package to me. Rpmlint is silent, mock build ok. Package meets all *MUST* items. APPROVED.
-1 from my side here. - Does not yield the guidelines for icon cache as stated here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache - desktop-file-install must not use a vendor. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor Reviews should definitely be made more thorough and conscientious. It would be great if you also checked the SHOULD items.
(In reply to comment #2) > -1 from my side here. > > - Does not yield the guidelines for icon cache as stated here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache As far as I understand, these are just "best practices", not part of guidelines. Guidelines just read "If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.". When it comes to my scriptlet, it is functionally equivalent and only difference is harmless error output in case gtk-update-icon-cache. Given it is an aesthetic annoyance, I'll use the other version when importing the package, but this is definitely not a reason for blocking the review. Moreover, the first form is already used in packages, and referred to in wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/iconcache > - desktop-file-install must not use a vendor. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor Wrong again. This is not a guideline. Actually, the guideline says the opposite: "If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as<vendor_id>." See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage > Reviews should definitely be made more thorough and conscientious. It would be > great if you also checked the SHOULD items. I'd be very thankful if you refrained from being harsh to other contributors at least until you study the packaging guidelines. Thanks! (In reply to comment #1) > Simple and neat package to me. Rpmlint is silent, mock build ok. Package meets > all *MUST* items. > > APPROVED. Diky za review! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: tunneler Short Description: Clone of legendary Tunneler game Owners: lkundrak Branches: EL-5 F-10
cvs done.
no F-9 ??? Lubomir, please add F-9 to active branches for this package...
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: tunneler Short Description: Clone of legendary Tunneler game Branches: EL-5 F-10 Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-9 Owners: cassmodiah
I didn't meant to sound harsh. If you felt offended by the way I wrote my comment I hereby apologize for that. For reference here is the Guideline on desktop files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage It says: For new packages, do not apply a vendor tag to desktop files.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage Imho it has changed during this review. I saw old vendor tag here few hours ago.
Actually this desktop-file-install usage change (i.e. that for new packages --vendor=fedora is removed) took place in last October: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02273.html http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 It was just wiki package was not updated.
(In reply to comment #9) > It was just wiki package was not updated. wiki page was (not updated)
So please remove --vendor=fedora from desktop-file-install.
too late :(