[Bug 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464



--- Comment #3 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1)
> > %install
> > rm -rf %{buildroot}
> 
> Removal of %{buildroot} is no longer necessary, except for EPEL 5. 
> - Do you plan to provide an EPEL package?

Good catch. It's a leftover. Removed.

> > # Install additional docs
> > install -p -m 644 COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt \
> >  %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}
> 
> This is not needed and should be handled in %files section with the %doc tag:
> %files
> %doc COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt

If I did that on older version of rpm, I would have wiped out the doc already
installed by "make install".

> >  convert -gravity south \
> …
> 
> I don't understand. Why do you manipulate the icons so much? You should put
> a comment in the spec file why that is necessary. 

So much? The original image is not a square, but the desktop icon are.
Therefore I resize the image using the same aspect ratio and putting a white
background at the top.

> Ask upstream why the icons
> are not provided in the tarball, may there be any legal reasons? Be careful
> with additional or legal questionable content cause Fedora does only allow
> free stuff: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Content_Licenses

Why upstream should ship an icon when they do not ship a desktop file?

This package is perfectly legal. Ballerburg was released for Atari ST in Public
Domain:
http://www.eckhardkruse.net/atari_st/baller.html?en

This is a port for Linux based on that source code.

> There are two patches available at upstream, committed after the 1.1.0
> release: fullscreen fix and SDL2 usage. Maybe consider to include them.

Fullscreen mode already works - just press "F" to test it.

The RPM is not linked against SDL2 but against SDL 1.2 therefore the patch is
useless.

Spec URL: 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12575912/reviews/ballerburg.spec

SRPM URL: 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12575912/reviews/ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]