https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
Bug ID: 1676999 Summary: Review Request: rogue - The original graphical adventure game Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: wart@kobold.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec Name or Url: http://www2.kobold.org:88/~wart/fedora/rogue.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www2.kobold.org:88/~wart/fedora/rogue-5.4.5-26.fc29.src.rpm Description: Before DOOM, there were the Dungeons of DOOM. This is the game that started an entire genre.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
--- Comment #1 from Wart wart@kobold.org --- I am resubmitting rogue as it was retired a few months ago. The original upstream source has vanished (domain no longer exists), but I found that someone had made a copy of an earlier version on github. This package is based on these mirrored sources, with patches updated appropriately. I also included a patch to fix the ncurses build error, as well as the missing setgroups() call.
rpmlint reports the following:
rogue.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/rogue games 2755 rogue.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rogue 2755 rogue.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/roguelike 775 rogue.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/roguelike/rogue54.scr
The odd permissions are used to enable a scoreboard file shared among all users. A zero-length scoreboard file is installed initially to avoid scoreboard creation errors.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" export LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}"
→ Use %set_build_flags
- make %{_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install
- Use:
Source0: https://github.com/phs/rogue/archive/v5.4.4/%%7Bname%7D-5.4.4.tar.gz
- I don't get why this would be needed:
Requires(post): coreutils Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): coreutils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils
Package Review ==============
Legend: [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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rogue/review-rogue/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 102400 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rogue- debuginfo , rogue-debugsource [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: rogue-5.4.5-26.fc30.x86_64.rpm rogue-debuginfo-5.4.5-26.fc30.x86_64.rpm rogue-debugsource-5.4.5-26.fc30.x86_64.rpm rogue-5.4.5-26.fc30.src.rpm rogue.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/bin/rogue games 2755 rogue.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rogue 2755 rogue.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/roguelike 775 rogue.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/roguelike/rogue54.scr 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
--- Comment #3 from Wart wart@kobold.org --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) [...]
- I don't get why this would be needed:
Requires(post): coreutils Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): coreutils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils
These aren't needed. They are leftovers from earlier versions of Fedora. I've removed them in the files below.
New spec file and src rpm with the requested changes applied:
Spec Name or Url: http://www2.kobold.org:88/~wart/fedora/rogue.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www2.kobold.org:88/~wart/fedora/rogue-5.4.5-27.fc29.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2021-06-26 12:41:59
--- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Package is in repo
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com