https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Bug ID: 1638101 Summary: Review Request: lutris - a linux gaming platform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bunnyapocalypse@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://bunnyapocalypse.space/lutris.spec
SRPM URL: https://bunnyapocalypse.space/lutris-0.4.20-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description: Lutris is a gaming platform for GNU/Linux. Its goal is to make gaming on Linux as easy as possible by taking care of installing and setting up the game for the user. The only thing you have to do is play the game. It aims to support every game that is playable on Linux.
Fedora Account System Username: bunnyapocalypse
Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30169741
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
Group: Amusements/Games/Other
The Group: tag is no longer used in Fedora.
URL: http://%%7Bname%7D.net Source0: http://%%7Bname%7D.net/releases/%%7Bname%7D_%%7Bversion%7D.tar.xz
You can use %{URL} as part of the Source here.
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/%{name}.png
This necessitates adding "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #2 from Chris King bunnyapocalypse@protonmail.com --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #1)
Group: Amusements/Games/Other
The Group: tag is no longer used in Fedora.
Ah, my bad, thought it was just optional nowadays.
URL: http://%%7Bname%7D.net Source0: http://%%7Bname%7D.net/releases/%%7Bname%7D_%%7Bversion%7D.tar.xz
You can use %{URL} as part of the Source here.
Thanks, didn't notice that
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/%{name}.png
This necessitates adding "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme".
Fixed that.
SPEC & SRPM links updated accordingly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Chris your website is down.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #4 from Chris King bunnyapocalypse@protonmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
Chris your website is down.
Wow, I don't know how that happened, it's fixed now though. Thanks for letting me know.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
msandova@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msandova@protonmail.com
--- Comment #5 from msandova@protonmail.com --- `python3-evdev` should be listed as a dependency.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #6 from Chris King bunnyapocalypse@protonmail.com --- (In reply to msandova from comment #5)
`python3-evdev` should be listed as a dependency.
The app works fine for my uses without evdev installed, but I'll trust that there is a reason you suggested this. Spec and srpm updated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #7 from msandova@protonmail.com --- It is required for joystick support. As far as I remember it used to be a dependency on the lutris repo for fedora 28 but for some reason it was changed on the rawhide repo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com ---
- Not needed, install already does the job:
desktop-file-validate
- GPL-3.0+ is not a valid license shorthand, it should be GPLv3
- I don't understand the point of all this:
%{!?__python3: %global __python3 /usr/bin/python3} %{!?python3_sitelib: %global python3_sitelib %(%{__python3} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?py3_build: %global py3_build CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{__python3} setup.py build} %{!?py3_install: %global py3_install %{__python3} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot}}
Unless you're planning to support EL6, which would be weird for a game thing, all of this is already defined in Fedora.
- Remove that single %dir:
%dir %{_datadir}/appdata/
- Build fails because of the wrong directory. Use instead:
%prep %setup -q -n %{name}
- You need to add the version-release in your %changelog entry
* Wed Oct 10 2018 Christopher King bunnyapocalypse@protonmail.com - 0.4.20-1
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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. [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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 228 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/lutris /review-lutris/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/appdata(filesystem) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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 or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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: lutris-0.4.20-1.fc30.noarch.rpm lutris-0.4.20-1.fc30.src.rpm lutris.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog lutris.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ lutris.noarch: W: no-documentation lutris.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lutris lutris.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog lutris.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #9 from Chris King bunnyapocalypse@protonmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) Thanks for the review Robert, I have fixed the issues you mentioned.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lutris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lutris-0.4.21-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-962cded222
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lutris-0.4.21-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9ae505ffa7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lutris-0.4.21-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-962cded222
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lutris-0.4.21-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9ae505ffa7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-10-31 11:51:37
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lutris-0.4.21-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638101
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lutris-0.4.21-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com