[Bug 886908] New: Review Request: xonotic-data - Game data for the Xonotic first person shooter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Bug ID: 886908 Summary: Review Request: xonotic-data - Game data for the Xonotic first person shooter Product: Fedora Version: 18 Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: limburgher@gmail.com
Description: Xonotic is a fast-paced, chaotic, and intense multiplayer first person shooter, focused on providing basic, old style deathmatches.
Data (textures, maps, sounds and models) required to play xonotic.
This is a rename/fork of Nexuiz, and will replace it.
SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-data.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-data-0.6.0-1.fc18.src.r...
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |886903
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Change "define" to "global".
Don't use macros for sed, chmod, rm, mkdir and install.
The following elements are no longer necessary, unless you're going for EPEL: Clean section, the first rm in the install section, buildroot definition and defattr.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #1)
The following elements are no longer necessary, unless you're going for EPEL: Clean section, the first rm in the install section, buildroot definition and defattr.
I assume the package will go in EPEL 5, because Nexuiz is already there and EPEL 5 provides all the needed dependencies as far as I can see.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |negativo17@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |negativo17@gmail.com
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- As in xonotic review:
1) I would prefer also to have the various tags (Name: Release: etc.) and values separated by some tab if possible, but this is only my opinion.
2) Macros should not be used unless necessary [1], I think %{__rm}, %{__install}, %{__mkdir_p} and %{__sed} should be removed.
3) What are the comments from line 31 to 39 used for?
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
Thanks, --Simone
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Addressed all the above, yes, this is intended for EPEL.
SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-data.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-data-0.6.0-2.fc18.src.r...
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (xonotic-0.6.0.tar.gz) [-]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== 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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: xonotic-data-0.6.0-2.fc18.src.rpm xonotic-data-0.6.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm xonotic-data.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer xonotic-data.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deathmatches -> deathwatches, death matches, death-matches xonotic-data.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} xonotic-data.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} xonotic-data.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides nexuiz-data xonotic-data.src: W: invalid-url Source0: xonotic-0.6.0.tar.gz xonotic-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer xonotic-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deathmatches -> deathwatches, death matches, death-matches xonotic-data.noarch: W: self-obsoletion nexuiz-data < 2.5.2 obsoletes nexuiz-data 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint xonotic-data xonotic-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer xonotic-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deathmatches -> deathwatches, death matches, death-matches xonotic-data.noarch: W: self-obsoletion nexuiz-data < 2.5.2 obsoletes nexuiz-data 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Small issues; otherwise the package is ok:
====
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (xonotic-0.6.0.tar.gz)
Line 17 of the spec file should be:
Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
====
xonotic-data.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides nexuiz-data xonotic-data.noarch: W: self-obsoletion nexuiz-data < 2.5.2 obsoletes nexuiz-data
Line 21 of the spec file should be:
Provides: nexuiz-data = %{version}-%{release}
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #7 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Hello, any news?
Regards, --Simone
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Sorry, been suUUuuper busy in the last week or so. :)
Fixed the above, except for the Source0 line, which won't work as %{name}, since it's xonotic-data, not xonotic, and the tarball is xonotic.
SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-data.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/xonotic/xonotic-data-0.6.0-3.fc18.src.r...
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #8)
Fixed the above, except for the Source0 line, which won't work as %{name}, since it's xonotic-data, not xonotic, and the tarball is xonotic.
Yep, you're right, but since you're regenerating the tarball, I think you could use "xonotic-data-%{version}.tar.gz" before committing; so people using the old buildroot (i.e. all sources in the same folder) will easily spot it and is more consistent.
Package approved.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Cool, I'll fix that before import. Thanks for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xonotic-data Short Description: Game data for the Xonotic first person shooter Owners: limb Branches: f18 f17 el6 el5 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18,xonotic-0.6.0-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18,xonotic-0....
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18, xonotic-0.6.0-7.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-03-04 17:25:48
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18, xonotic-0.6.0-7.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla