Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885038 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande <trpost@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #4) > > 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. > > Hi Michael. Thank you for your helping me. Really I noted these points but I'm confuse, because by compiling this software manually, its binaries are located precisely in those paths. > > %{_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 mmh... I have not seen a lot things. -- 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=XTPet3dj3P&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review