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: extremetuxracer - 3D racing game featuring Tux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436126 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-05 16:51 EST ------- The below review is based on your package after applying the following "patch": < Release: 1%{?dist} --- > Release: 0%{?dist} 62c62 < %configure --with-tcl=%{_libdir} --- > %configure 98,100d97 < * Wed Mar 05 2008 manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 0.4-1 < - fix %%configure line < Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM: extremetuxracer.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/extremetuxracer-0.4/contrib/script-fu/ppracer-save-as-pngs.scm extremetuxracer.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/extremetuxracer-0.4/contrib/script-fu/ppracer-create-level.scm --> both scripts end with CR-LF. ignorable, I presume extremetuxracer.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided tuxracer extremetuxracer.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ppracer --> ignorable but are you sure you want/need to obsolete these packages? They seem to be different, even if they are based on the same grounds [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2+ [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. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: db5e55b5780dc2578d8c80d0ce48354b99bb53cf extremetuxracer-0.4.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 and F7/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on:devel/x86_64 and F7/x86_64 [x] Package functions as described. [!] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. see issue #2 (desktop file / icon name has extension [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. MUSTFIX --with-tcl=%{_libdir} in the %configure line 2. Needs work: * BuildRequires: sed should not be included * Desktop file: the Icon tag should either use the full path to the icon or the icon name without extension (wiki:Packaging/Guidelines#desktop) 3. Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: libICE-devel (by libSM-devel), libX11-devel (by libXext-devel), libXext-devel (by libXmu-devel), libXt-devel (by libXmu-devel), libSM-devel (by libXt-devel), libGL-devel (by SDL-devel), libGLU-devel (by SDL-devel), SDL-devel (by SDL_mixer-devel), zlib-devel (by freetype-devel) === Final Notes === Please fix the %configure line, consider removing the duplicate BRs and removing sed from BR and you are good to go. Also, could you please elaborate on your intention to _replace_ tuxracer and ppracer rather than simply adding a new [similar] game ? I've noticed that the %URL given in ppracer's spec is not valid any more, but the %SOURCE link seems fine. Is this project dead? Are the courses provided by this package identical / replacements for those included in the other 2 games? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review