Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885038 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Note: Cannot find license.html in rpm(s) That could be a bug in fedora-review, because the file _is_ included, and the package also includes a COPYING as %doc. fedora-review is not 100% safe. It certainly doesn't know all of the packaging guidelines to tell whether a package meets them or not. I wouldn't trust it too much, but suggest using it only to see where it complains and then double-check those items. > [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > > You can use: %{name} is a computer program to play the board game Blokus If fedora-review flagged that as '[!]', that's strange. The guidelines say: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Source_RPM_Buildtime_Macros But this package doesn't use any macros in %summary or %description, so I don't understand what should be wrong here. Btw, on the web page the game is named "Pentobi" with an upper-case first character. The package is named "pentobi", because more often than not we write everything in lower-case. If %name were used here, the %description would start the sentence with a lower-case character, which would look unusual. The Naming Guidelines _try_ to explain when it may make sense to use a specific case in the package name, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity but I think there are only very few examples where developers have tried to influence the naming of RPM packages actually. Conclusively, "Name: pentobi" is fine, and not using %{name} in the summary or description is fine, too. > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. This isn't trivial to check. And it's hard to tell how many packagers/reviewers examine it at all. For this package, it would be sufficient to check whether it wants to display the manual (not in a docdir, however) or the three %doc files via its "Help" menu. => It doesn't seem to do that. > BuildRequires and Requires entries should be listed one-by-one. Packager is free to disagree, however. ;-) > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Remains to be examined. Are the unit tests suitable for %check section? [...] A few findings: > Requires: boost,qt https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > %{_prefix}/games/pentobi > %dir %{_datadir}/games/%{name} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/Packaging | Data files (maps, pixmaps, sounds) go in %{_datadir}/%{name} , | not %{_datadir}/games/%{name} . Binaries go in %{_bindir} and | not /usr/games. According to the FHS, the use of /usr/share/games | and /usr/games is optional, and we recommend not using either for | consistency, so that games are packaged like all other applications. > %{_datadir}/mime/packages/pentobi-mime.xml https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo > %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/pentobi.png https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache > %{_datadir}/thumbnailers/pentobi.thumbnailer $ rpm -qf /usr/share/thumbnailers file /usr/share/thumbnailers is not owned by any package https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories $ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/thumbnailers thunar-vfs-0:1.2.0-7.fc18.x86_64 thunar-vfs-0:1.2.0-7.fc18.i686 ffmpegthumbnailer-0:2.0.8-2.fc18.x86_64 whaawmp-0:0.2.14-4.fc18.noarch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OU4letEJDN&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review