Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914798 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: 1. The proper build flags are not being used. The proper *linker* flags are, though. 2. Where did "WTFPL" for the main package license and "CC-BY-SA" for the data package license come from? The "AUTHORS" file claims that the code and data are GPL (no version specified), the graphics are CC0, the soundtrack is Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike (which cannot be used in Fedora: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3), and sound effects are the same license as Wesnoth (GPLv2+). I'm not totally sure what is in each package, other than that the code is in the main package. Can you explain the licensing situation, please? (Also, are the reused Wesnoth files packaged? If so, is there some way of reusing the existing Wesnoth packages?) 3. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache for scriptlets to use with a desktop file that installs an icon. 4. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages you should not bundle the one font file into the -data subpackage. However, this is only a *should*, not a *must*, and I'm not at all convinced that you should change the package. 5. The man page is installed into man6, but it says (1) on the actual page. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: %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. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: update-desktop-database is invoked when required [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [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. [x]: 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]: 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: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jvgs-0.5-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm jvgs-data-0.5-2.fc20.noarch.rpm jvgs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minimalistic -> Minimalist, Minimalism, Animistic jvgs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xkcd jvgs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webcomic -> web comic, web-comic, economic jvgs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvgs.exe jvgs-data.noarch: W: no-documentation jvgs-data.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/jvgs/resources/level-end/girl.lua 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jvgs jvgs-data jvgs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minimalistic -> Minimalist, Minimalism, Animistic jvgs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xkcd jvgs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webcomic -> web comic, web-comic, economic jvgs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvgs.exe jvgs-data.noarch: W: no-documentation jvgs-data.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/jvgs/resources/level-end/girl.lua 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- jvgs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh jvgs-data libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblua-5.1.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) jvgs-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jvgs Provides -------- jvgs: jvgs jvgs(x86-64) jvgs-data: jvgs-data MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/jvgs/jvgs-0.5-src.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b906b96a532303df295312e7b352ab06d1c010ccf201527b2dade4634529efdb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b906b96a532303df295312e7b352ab06d1c010ccf201527b2dade4634529efdb Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 914798 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- 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=mvSWJkoc2d&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review