Description: Xonotic is a fast-paced, chaotic, and intense multiplayer first person shooter, focused on providing basic, old style deathmatches. This is a rename/fork of Nexuiz, and will replace it. SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-0.6.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
It looks to me like the specfile uses nexuiz as binary name? Shouldn't Xonotic be used there? Also I am not sure whether xonotic should really obsolote nexuiz. Of course nexuiz upstream is dead and simply removing nexuiz's darkplaces might make packaging easier. But xonotic does NOT offer compatibility to nexuiz servers. People who still play Nexuiz would be force updated to Xonotic and cannot play on their favourite servers anymore. Regards Erik
It builds nexuiz, so I used nexuiz. I can symlink xonotic if you like. Re replacement, I think simply moving on is the way to go. If during the course of the review enough people object I might reconsider, but as of now I don't envision that happening.
It should not be nessecary to mention nexuiz anywhere in the specfile (except in the Obsolute-Field maybe...) You can check the building process here: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?expand=1&file=xonotic.spec&package=xonotic&project=home%3AAblu%3Abranches%3Agames I think it is done correct there. Regards, Erik
Hm. It looks like this specfile does not include the d0_blind_id. You can find it in Xonotic/source/d0_blind_id. It is required for collecting stats for stats.xonotic.org and for saving race records. Not having it will make getting statistics impossible. Regards, Erik
Where should blind_id go, I don't find it in that spec. /usr/bin?
Yes. The specfile i linked is not perfect (so it does not contain d0_blind_id). But if i remember correctly d0_blid_id does not have a real runnable binary (except one to test the libary). So it is mainly about installing the libary. See here for a specfile for d0_blind_id: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?expand=1&file=d0_blind_id.spec&package=d0_blind_id&project=games (Though i think it can be included as subpackage of xonotic)
There's a blind_id binary, is that sufficient?
As i said this is only a binary for testing/benchmarking the libary. So i think you are free to drop it. If you try running it it should only output time values or something. But it has no real value except testing.
How does xonotic use the library? It doesn't build against it.
Hm. I am not that deep in the engine. But i think it loads this libary dynamically during runtime (just like curl and zlib). If you need more detailed info best ask divVerent or merlijn in #xonotic on freenode on irc. Regards Erik
Here is a comment about it: [15:11:40] <divVerent> the library is normally loaded dynamically at runtime [15:11:46] <divVerent> you can make it dynamic at compile time or static though [15:12:12] <divVerent> by using the DP_CRYPTO_STATIC_LIBDIR and DP_CRYPTO_RIJNDAEL_STATIC_LIBDIR [15:12:17] <divVerent> make flags It should also be possible to statically link zlib and curl. If you want this please let me know. Then i will try to find out how.
Anything you could find out would be excellent. Xonotic doesn't seem to want it at build time.
Ok. I asked for how to link zlib and curl at build time... They told me that there was a debian package that had a patch for doing this. However i was unable to find this package (official status on debian is that somebody is working on packaging xonotic, but no builds yet). So far nobody of the xonotic developers knew where to find this patches. Is it required to link at compile time for zlib and curl? If so i will ask the development team to provide patches for this. Regards and Thanks again for the work on this package, Erik
I don't think so, I'm just concerned about blind_id.
Ok. After asking some questions to the dev team it looks like you have to do this for darkplaces: make DP_CRYPTO_STATIC_LIBDIR="/usr/local/lib" DP_CRYPTO_RIJNDAEL_STATIC_LIBDIR="/usr/local/lib" release However i get linking errors with that: http://sprunge.us/hiiY I am still waiting for reply from dev team for which target to use for compiling Regards and a Merry Christmas Erik
Ah it works when you compile d0_blind without openssl support. So ./configure --without-openssl and then use the make line from above for darkplaces. Also use release as make target instead of nexuiz. I think it should be possible to write the specfile without mentioning nexuiz once. This is also why i am sceptical if it is really right to obsolote nexuiz...
Hello, I have built the engine now, it requires the following to build succesfully or the Jpeg headers are not found: %if 0%{?rhel} BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel %else BuildRequires: libjpeg-turbo-devel %endif I assume by reading here and by the tags in the spec file (group, %clean, etc) that you also want to build for el5/el6, so I think libjpeg-devel should be included.
1) Can you please put each BuildRequires and Requires (including subpackages) on separate lines and possibly in alphabetic order? This makes the spec file much more readable. I would prefer also to have the various tags (Name: Release: etc.) and values separated by some tab if possible, but this is only my opinion. 2) Is opengl-games-utils required? Although preferable to have 3d acceleration the game should run also through software rendering. 3) Should the vendor parameter be removed from desktop-file install calls? According to the package guidelines [1] the vendor should only be supplied if the package has already the vendor in place, but this is a new package or replacement. 4) Macros should not be used unless necessary [2], I think %{__rm}, %{__install}, %{__mkdir_p} and %{__sed} should be removed. 5) Please remove the comment at line 106 (#%patch0 -p0). 6) The commands "install" and "cp" should use "-p" to preserve timestamps where possible. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
Xonotic rocks!
Maybe it has already been discussed, but how does the "unbundle" of the darkplaces engine works here? From what I see if I would try to package another game using DarkPlaces I will need to force the game into using the one that has been packaged here; and I really doubt this will work. And inside the darkplace engine are the "nexuiz-*" binaries; wouldn't be better to package them in the xonotic package? Usually the darkplaces forks carry game-specific patches.
The desktop file (/usr/share/applications/fedora-xonotic.desktop) has the wrong icon icon, it is currently "nexuiz", it should be xonotic. $ cat /usr/share/applications/fedora-xonotic.desktop | grep Icon Icon=nexuiz $ rpm -ql xonotic /usr/bin/nexuiz-sdl-wrapper /usr/share/applications/fedora-xonotic.desktop /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/xonotic.png
Addressed the above, left opengl-games-utils in place, haven't dealt with d0_blind yet. I can't use the paths above, as I'm not installing it. It can't find all the static libs, they don't seem to be building. I've left in what I have, commented out. Not sure how to "unbundle" darkplaces, I've though about it and I don't think it's needed or appropriate. Can't find an appropriate xonotic icon. SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-0.6.0-4.fc18.src.rpm
For icons: http://git.xonotic.org/?p=xonotic/xonotic.git;a=tree;f=misc/logos;h=026e78814052e73367e96aaa301c88a247c9eecd;hb=HEAD;js=1
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n darkplaces-quake, %package -n darkplaces, %package server, %package -n darkplaces-server, %package -n darkplaces-quake-server [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 522240 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source10 (darkplaces-quake.sh) Source11 (darkplaces-quake.autodlrc) Source12 (darkplaces-quake.desktop) Patch0 (darkplaces-crypto.patch) Source2 (d0_blind_id-0.6.0.tar.gz) Source0 (darkplaces-0.6.0.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define _hardened_build 1 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: xonotic-debuginfo-0.6.0-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm xonotic-server-0.6.0-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm xonotic-0.6.0-4.fc18.src.rpm xonotic-0.6.0-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/modelgen.h [...] xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/sv_user.c xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/netconn.c xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/netconn.c xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/model_sprite.c xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/netconn.h xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/netconn.h [...] xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/snd_main.h xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/snd_null.c xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/snd_null.c xonotic-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/darkplaces/menu.c xonotic-server.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer xonotic-server.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deathmatches -> deathwatches, death matches, death-matches xonotic-server.x86_64: W: no-documentation xonotic.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multiplayer -> Multiplier, Multiplexer xonotic.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deathmatch -> deathwatch, death match, death-match xonotic.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer xonotic.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deathmatches -> deathwatches, death matches, death-matches xonotic.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} xonotic.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} xonotic.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} xonotic.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{version} xonotic.src:46: W: unversioned-explicit-provides nexuiz xonotic.src:124: W: macro-in-comment %{__make} xonotic.src:176: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} xonotic.src:176: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} xonotic.src:212: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} xonotic.src:141: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 33, tab: line 141) xonotic.src: W: invalid-url Source2: d0_blind_id-0.6.0.tar.gz xonotic.src: W: invalid-url Source0: darkplaces-0.6.0.tar.gz xonotic.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multiplayer -> Multiplier, Multiplexer xonotic.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deathmatch -> deathwatch, death match, death-match xonotic.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer xonotic.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deathmatches -> deathwatches, death matches, death-matches xonotic.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0-3 ['0.6.0-4.fc18', '0.6.0-4'] xonotic.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion nexuiz <= 2.5.2 obsoletes nexuiz xonotic.x86_64: W: no-documentation xonotic.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/xonotic-sdl-wrapper opengl-game-wrapper.sh xonotic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xonotic-sdl xonotic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xonotic-sdl-wrapper xonotic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xonotic-glx 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 98 errors, 33 warnings.
License check: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) ---------------------------------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/darkplaces/common.h BSD (2 clause) -------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/darkplaces/d0_blind_id/d0_blind_id.c GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/darkplaces/snd_coreaudio.c LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) ----------------------------------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/darkplaces/vid_agl_mackeys.h Unknown or generated -------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/darkplaces/prvm_offsets.h
Issues: ===== [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I've tried building with %{?_smp_mflags} and it builds fine, you can remove comment at line 130 and add %{?_smp_mflags} to line 131/132. ===== [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. According to the license check, a source file has a BSD license. I think the License tag should be: License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and BSD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios ===== [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define _hardened_build 1 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE ===== xonotic.src:46: W: unversioned-explicit-provides nexuiz xonotic.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion nexuiz <= 2.5.2 obsoletes nexuiz Line 46 should be: Provides: nexuiz = %{name}-%{version} In addition to this, following the same logic the server subpackage should have: Obsoletes: nexuiz-server <= 2.5.2 Provides: nexuiz-server = %{name}-%{version} It should be possible to run both old and new servers at the same time, but this is the same approach as the base game; so if we obsolete nexuiz, also the unmantained nexuiz-server should be obsoleted. ===== xonotic.src:124: W: macro-in-comment %{__make} xonotic.src:176: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} xonotic.src:176: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} xonotic.src:212: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} As in comment #18, also those should be replaced with system commands, in case they are later uncommented. Also %{_make} should be replaced with make. ===== xonotic.src:141: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 33, tab: line 141) You can remove one space at line 33 and 35 and replace the tabs with spaces from line 141 onwards. ===== xonotic.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0-3 ['0.6.0-4.fc18', '0.6.0-4'] Bump release in changelog to 0.6.0-4.
Another issue: Line 231: %{_bindir}/xonotic-dedicated Should be in the "%files server" section. Regarding d0_(In reply to comment #22) > Addressed the above, left opengl-games-utils in place, haven't dealt with > d0_blind yet. I can't use the paths above, as I'm not installing it. It > can't find all the static libs, they don't seem to be building. I've left > in what I have, commented out. I'm looking into it, if I find anything new I'll write it here (it can always be added later when the package is already approved, btw). > Not sure how to "unbundle" darkplaces, I've though about it and I don't > think it's needed or appropriate. I agree with you, but what about removing the darplaces* stuff entirely? I don't see the benefit at all of having the default darkplaces engine the one used in xonotic for the whole distribution. I would remove all the darkplaces packages and package only the xonotic binaries. Just leave the 2 make command in place and then package only the xonotic-* binaries forgetting about the rest. This way another darkplace based game can be imported in Fedora. And for running quake, one could post for review the standalone darkplaces engine. I think this way the package is much more cleaner and simple and does not block anything else from going into fedora. > Can't find an appropriate xonotic icon. Could you please use the icons in comment #23? Thanks, --Simone
Other small stuff: - You could also remove the comment at line 21. - Please also change line 97 from %{__mkdir_p} to "mkdir -p". I've put here a diff to your spec file with all the above changes applied (except for the icons) and darkplaces packages removed. Would like to have a look? http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/xonotic.spec.diff
SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-0.6.0-5.fc18.src.rpm Fixed the above. I think darkplaces should stay for now, since it's part of the upstream distribution. If another darkplaces game comes up and cannot use the darkplaces subpackage as it is I'm willing to revisit it.
Everything's almost ok, except for a couple of things: - comment at line 21 it's still there, what does it exactly mean? - there was no answer/action regarding the import of icons in comment #23 from Erik Schilling. I think they could be used, they're part of the next official Xonotic 0.7.0 release, so it's ok to import them. - xonotic.spec:156: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 156, tab: line 140) Thanks, --Simone
1. for ImageMagick, got lost when I sorted the BRs, and since we don't need it anymore, I removed it. 2. I'm using an icon from the 0.6.0 tarball. Is that ok? 3. Fixed in my local copy.
(In reply to comment #32) > 2. I'm using an icon from the 0.6.0 tarball. Is that ok? The icon is ok, but in comment #22 you said you were not able to find an appropriate icon and in comment #23 Erik proposed new ones. Package approved. Thanks! --Simone
Yeah, turns out I was wrong. :) Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xonotic Short Description: Multiplayer, deathmatch oriented first person shooter Owners: limb Branches: f18 f17 el6 el5 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18,xonotic-0.6.0-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18,xonotic-0.6.0-6.fc18
xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18, xonotic-0.6.0-7.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
When first started it appears in a reduced resolution. Quitting from that resolution leaves the desktop in the same. But even changing the resolution to the desktop's native resolution does not resolve that problem, for after it quites, the desktops looks even worse (slightly messed up, not just lower resolution, shell not visible, wallpaper cropped, etc). Tried with natively 1920x1080 - drops into a messed-up 1024x768 after quitting. Cause unknown. It appears not to be strictly intrinsic to Xonotic - I've tested in on a Gentoo box where such behaviour (with native or reduced resolution alike) is not observed. If no proper solution can be established, a wrapper-script may help the problem by restoring the resolution (by means of xrandr or a gnome daemon) after the program quits. Temporarily minimizing the game should still pose a problem.
I should note that this is on an ATI card whereas the Gentoo one had Intel. If it turns out that this is a driver issue specific to ATI I'll revise the Karma on Bodhi.
I think it may be driver-specific, because I can't reproduce it. :(
Indeed. It even was fixed in the last update.
xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18, xonotic-0.6.0-7.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.