https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Bug ID: 1165895 Summary: Review Request: gosnake - The Console Snake Game Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gosnake.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gosnake-1.0-1.fc... Description: GoSnake is a simple yet nice implementation of the well known snake game. It is designed to run under the GNU/Linux console (including terminal emulators). The aim of the game is simple: control your snake and move it around to eat food without hitting walls, or colliding with itself. The game includes 10 levels with an option to play levels randomly, and a high score board. Fedora Account System Username: mohammedisam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/review-rc/1165895-gosnake/licensecheck.txt [x]: %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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Please consider adding a .desktop file which would launch the game in a terminal.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gosnake [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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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). [x]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gosnake-1.0-1.fc22.i686.rpm gosnake-1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gosnake-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc22.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- gosnake (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gnudos info libc.so.6 libgnudos.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- gosnake: gosnake gosnake(x86-32)
Source checksums ---------------- http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gosnake-1.0.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3735e3f7e66c7475afddea5c687f5c92ff4faa49386fc4d5acba745824a5ffd0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3735e3f7e66c7475afddea5c687f5c92ff4faa49386fc4d5acba745824a5ffd0
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-22-i386 -b 1165895 Buildroot used: fedora-22-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Please fix %files to use %license as described in Issues. Package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com Flags| |needinfo?(mohammed_isam1984 | |@yahoo.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mohammed_isam1984 | |@yahoo.com) |
--- Comment #2 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gosnake.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gosnake-1.1-1.fc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gosnake Short Description: The Console Snake Game Upstream URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Owners: mohammedisam Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gosnake-1.1-1.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gosnake-1.1-1.fc22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |gosnake-1.1-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-07-14 11:30:57
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|gosnake-1.1-1.fc21 |gosnake-1.1-1.fc22
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6ec21e9219
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-db608db970
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5e937b1c05
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-86295966e6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gosnake' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-86295966e6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gosnake' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-db608db970
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gosnake' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5e937b1c05
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update gosnake' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6ec21e9219
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2015-07-14 11:30:57 |2015-10-31 22:38:31
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165895
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gosnake-1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla