Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: shippy - Space invaders / Galaxians like game with powerups https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186993 ------- Additional Comments From wart@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-27 17:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Two minute review: > > -BR is missing allegro-devel ditto. > -rpmlint errors/warnings: > W: shippy no-documentation Perhaps the docs from shippy-data should move to the base shippy package. rpmlint will warn about no docs for shippy-data, but that's fine. > E: shippy non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/shippy 02755 > W: shippy-allegro no-documentation Either make shippy-allegro require shippy, or duplicate the docs in shippy-allegro. Based on my .desktop file comments below, I would recommend the former > E: shippy-allegro non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/shippy-allegro 02755 This is allowed per the Games SIG packaging guidelines for shared scoreboard files. > I guess these are okay to be ignored. I tried running shippy and fullscreen > mode does not work properly on my LCD monitor. The screen is shifted to the > right and down so I only see the upper-left portion of the screen. Probablly > due to a bad X11 config on my part. > > -package name okay > -If I only install shippy-allegro I do not get a desktop entry Since there are two executables (shippy shippy-allegro), I would suggest changing the name of the executable 'shippy' to 'shippy-std' and providing a wrapper script that invokes shippy-allegro, if present, or shippy-std if not. This wrapper should be in the base 'shippy' package and called by the .desktop file. This will allow the .desktop file to launch the best available frontend found, but would also force shippy-allegro to Requires: shippy. > -Shouldnt shippy-data be noarch? It should, but you can't provide arch and noarch packages from a single spec file. Unless upstream provides a separate tarball for the -data files, the use of a single spec that generates an arch-specific -data package is fine. > -Could not find: > http://download.sourceforge.net/ship84/shipv1.3.3.7UNIX.zip > -Could not verify source due to error above > -Illegal use of elite version numbers ?? As far as I'm concerned, if upstream uses 1.3.3.7 as the version number, the spec file should as well. I wonder what they'll change it to if they ever release a new version... > -The angry Fez won! No kidding! Curse the angry Fez! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
