Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/funguloids.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/funguloids-1.06-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Never before has collecting mushrooms been this mildly entertaining. At least not in outer space. It's more of a lifestyle than a game, really. Now with graphics and sound, too! Seriously though, we like to think the game as a space-flying-mushroom-picking-simulator. Well no, "Those Funny Funguloids!" is actually a nice little piece of entertainment. You collect mushrooms, bring the back to your home base and profit! That's the basic idea in a nutshell. It has smooth, appealing 3d graphics and nice atmospheric sound effects. Go ahead and try it out - it has sounds too! Fedora Account System Username: jwrdegoede rpmlint: [hans@shalem devel]$ rpmlint x86_64/* *.src.rpm funguloids.src: W: strange-permission mpak.py 0755L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The warning can be ignored, the script needs to be executable as its run during build
Hi Hans, you didn't assign a review from me, anyway i start working on yours. I general your package looks good, but i've one questions. Issues: ======= - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in funguloids See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache faults positiv in every current review at the moment. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 20664320 bytes in /usr/share 20664320 funguloids-1.06-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm I'm not shure if this is fixable, because your package doesn't use /{libdir} , but it isn't noarch. So i'm thinking, /usr/share/funguloids (20.3 MB) contains libaries for the package. Or did the package work if you move this directory to a noarch subpackage?
Hi, (In reply to comment #1) > Hi Hans, > you didn't assign a review from me Yes, I didn't get around to doing one yet, will do so ASAP. any particular review you would prefer me to take? > anyway i start working on yours. Thanks! > I general your package looks good, but i've one questions. > > Issues: > ======= > - update-desktop-database is invoked when required > Note: desktop file(s) in funguloids > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache > > faults positiv in every current review at the moment. Calling update-desktop-database is only needed when desktop files include mime-types, which most don't. If there is no MimeType=... in the .desktop file update-desktop-file is not needed. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 20664320 bytes in /usr/share 20664320 > funguloids-1.06-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm > > I'm not shure if this is fixable, because your package doesn't use /{libdir} > , but it isn't noarch. > So i'm thinking, /usr/share/funguloids (20.3 MB) contains libaries for the > package. > Or did the package work if you move this directory to a noarch subpackage? Moving the data to a noarhx sub-package is certainly doable, but not really necessary. 20 MB is not really all that large large is say 100_ MB, otherwise we would need to split tons and tons of packages. Usually in cases where we do a split-off -data package, upstream also has the data in a separate tarbal, and then splitting makes a lot of sense.
(In reply to comment #2) <snip> > > > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > > > Generic: > > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > > is > > arched. > > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 20664320 bytes in /usr/share 20664320 > > funguloids-1.06-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm > > > > I'm not shure if this is fixable, because your package doesn't use /{libdir} > > , but it isn't noarch. > > So i'm thinking, /usr/share/funguloids (20.3 MB) contains libaries for the > > package. > > Or did the package work if you move this directory to a noarch subpackage? > > Moving the data to a noarhx sub-package is certainly doable, but not really > necessary. 20 MB is not really all that large large is say 100_ MB, > otherwise we would need to split tons and tons of packages. Usually in cases > where we do a split-off -data package, upstream also has the data in a > separate tarbal, and then splitting makes a lot of sense. I agree, detailed review results comming soon.
offtopic on (In reply to comment #2) > Hi, > > (In reply to comment #1) > > Hi Hans, > > you didn't assign a review from me > > Yes, I didn't get around to doing one yet, will do so ASAP. any particular > review you would prefer me to take? > I prefer caja-dropbox at rpmfusion, but i don't wanna post the link here. But at the moment i'm a little bit confused about the licensing situation. And i don't know if it is possible to provide the package at there. There are some comments about this. If you think it is possible pls catch this review. Otherwise catch one of them. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924377 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924279 offtopic off
APPROVED! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in funguloids See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache fault positve The desktop file doesn't include mime-types. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rave/962813-funguloids/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: 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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required Note: icons in funguloids [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 245760 bytes in 14 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [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. [ ]: 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. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 20664320 bytes in /usr/share 20664320 funguloids-1.06-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: funguloids-1.06-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint funguloids 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- funguloids (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libOIS-1.3.0.so()(64bit) libOgreMain.so.1.8.1()(64bit) libalut.so.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblua-5.1.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libogg.so.0()(64bit) libopenal.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libvorbis.so.0()(64bit) libvorbisenc.so.2()(64bit) libvorbisfile.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- funguloids: funguloids funguloids(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/funguloids/funguloids-linux-1.06-4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9c9074a5d2de11690484a7e8eef7de9dd7d360ea72185ea35c54976646ef5cf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9c9074a5d2de11690484a7e8eef7de9dd7d360ea72185ea35c54976646ef5cf Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 962813
Hi, Thank for the review! (In reply to Wolfgang Ulbrich from comment #4) > offtopic on > (In reply to comment #2) > > Hi, > > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Hi Hans, > > > you didn't assign a review from me > > > > Yes, I didn't get around to doing one yet, will do so ASAP. any particular > > review you would prefer me to take? > > > I prefer caja-dropbox at rpmfusion, but i don't wanna post the link here. > But at the moment i'm a little bit confused about the licensing situation. > And i don't know if it is possible to provide the package at there. > There are some comments about this. > If you think it is possible pls catch this review. I don't mind doing rpmfusion reviews, but I would rather wait for the licensing situation to sort itself out. Once that is sorted out drop me a mail, and I'm sure we can do another review swap. > Otherwise catch one of them. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924377 I've taken this one. Regards, Hans
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: funguloids Short Description: Space-Flying-Mushroom-Picking-Simulator game Owners: jwrdegoede Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
funguloids-1.06-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/funguloids-1.06-1.fc19
funguloids-1.06-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/funguloids-1.06-1.fc18
funguloids-1.06-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
funguloids-1.06-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
funguloids-1.06-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.