Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
Summary: Review Request: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://home.zonnet.nl/jwrdegoede/xgalaga.spec SRPM URL: http://home.zonnet.nl/jwrdegoede/xgalaga-2.0.34-1.src.rpm Description: A clone of the classic game Galaga for the X Window System. Xgalaga is a space- invader like game with additional features to produce a more interesting game.
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
chris.stone@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |chris.stone@gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@gmail.com 2006-05-21 16:28 EST ------- I'm getting a build error in mock during configure:
checking for gcc... gcc checking whether the C compiler (gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fsigned-char -DXF86VIDMODE -lXxf86vm) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.65804 (%build)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.65804 (%build)
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl 2006-05-21 17:01 EST ------- Well it works fine for me can you lift the actual gcc error from config.log that might help.
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@gmail.com 2006-05-21 17:55 EST ------- $ cat /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-x86_64-core/root/builddir/build/BUILD/xgalaga-2.0.34/config.log This file contains any messages produced by compilers while running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake.
configure:564: checking host system type configure:588: checking for gcc configure:701: checking whether the C compiler (gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fsigned-char -DXF86VIDMODE -lXxf86vm) works configure:717: gcc -o conftest -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fsigned-char -DXF86VIDMODE -lXxf86vm conftest.c 1>&5 configure:714: warning: return type defaults to 'int' /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lXxf86vm collect2: ld returned 1 exit status configure: failed program was:
#line 712 "configure" #include "confdefs.h"
main(){return(0);}
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@gmail.com 2006-05-21 19:32 EST ------- * rpmlint output clean * Package meets Package Naming Guidelines * Spec filename matches base package %{name} * Package meets Packaging Guidelines * Package licensed with open source compatible license * License in spec matches actual license * License text included in %doc * Spec file written in American English * Spec file is legible * Sources match upstream 9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510 xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz 9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510 xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz * Package successfully compiles and builds on FC5 x86_64
O Package has all BR except libXxf86vm-devel which I needed to add for it to compile
* Package does not have any locales * Package does not contain any shared library files * Package is not relocatable * Package owns all directories it creates * Package does not contain any duplicate files in %files * File permissions are set properly * Package contains proper %clean section * Macro usage consistant enough - I notice you use %{__sed}, but don't bother using %{__make} or %{__rm} etc.. * Package contains permissble content * Package does not contain large documentation to warrent a seperate package * Package does not contain header files, libraries or .pc files * Package does not contain any .so files * Package does not require or use a -devel package * Package does not contain any .la files * Package adds an appropriate .desktop entry * Package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages
*** MUST ***
- You MUST figure out why FC5 needs to add a BuildRequires of libXxf86vm-devel and why this is not needed for your build (presumably FC6)
Non-blocking SHOULDs:
- Be more consistant with macro usage, for example %{__sed}, but no %{__rm} etc. - I also prefer %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but that is a matter of preference. I just think spec files look cleaner when everything consistantly uses %{} format. So basically I'm saying you should use a clean more legible consistant style in your spec files, but I'm not going to say this is a blocker or should be fixed, just a suggestion. - Let me know that the name xgalaga isn't going to be a problem with Namco. I've heard the Lgames are not allowed because the names are too close to the original, is this going to be a problem? - Return the favor by reviewing some of my packages ;-)
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@gmail.com 2006-05-21 20:00 EST ------- One other minor thing I noticed:
cat > README.fedora << EOF
The latest Fedora xgalaga package also includes fullscreen support, start xgalaga with -window to get the old windowed behaviour. You can switch on the fly between window and fullscreen mode with alt+enter . EOF
The word "behaviour" is not American English. It should be "behavior". In addition there should not be a space before the final period.
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl 2006-05-23 03:59 EST ------- Chris and I had a private discussion about this by email because BZ was down, copy and pasting it here for future reference:
---
Hi Chris,
Bugzilla is down so I'm doing it this way. Thanks for the review.
About the missing BR I failed to add that its needed for the devel branch too, things just worked on my system because I already had the needed devel-package installed.
About the name, I wans't sure about this myself, so now I've changed the name to xgalaxy (googled, not taken already).
New SRPM and spec are at:
http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/
Regards,
Hans
---
Christopher Stone wrote:
okay ill take a look at this tomorrow, been really busy today and didnt get the chance to look at it.
Do you think the name is going to be a problem? I'd prefer xgalaga, but then again, it's probably better to be safe than sorry.
The name is most likely not a problem, because the people with the rights to the original name probably don't care. xgalaga has existed under this name for a long time without trouble.
Then again the name had both me and you worried and those are valid worries the name is a legal problem. Even if the other party _probably_ doesn't care it still is a legal issue. It is the _probably_ that scares me and untill the "upto now" part of upto now this hasn't been a problem. If the people with the rights to the name one day all of a sudden do start caring, or get a grudge against OSS we've a problem, which I would rather avoid. Since I've already done the hard work of renaming (and recreating the "logo") I think its best / safest to stick with the new name.
Regards,
Hans
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@gmail.com 2006-05-23 21:39 EST ------- New rpm is STILL missing libXxf86vm-devel.
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl 2006-05-24 01:02 EST ------- Oops you're right, I did put adding it in the changelog, but I didn't actually do this.
Fixed SRPM and spec are at:
http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
chris.stone@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl 2006-06-01 04:29 EST ------- Imported & Build,
Thanks!
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: xgalaxy - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
chris.stone@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: xgalaga - |Review Request: xgalaxy - |Galaga clone for X11 |Galaga clone for X11
------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@gmail.com 2006-06-01 15:33 EST ------- Fixing bug report summary.
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: xgalaxy - Galaga clone for X11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=191582
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla