[Bug 1944764] New: Review Request: SameBoy - Game Boy and Game Boy Color emulator written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Bug ID: 1944764 Summary: Review Request: SameBoy - Game Boy and Game Boy Color emulator written in C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sentrycraft123@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/sameboy-rpm/blob/63f68beaf2d7f6494caa2a4809e970a58cad25bf/...
SRPM URL: https://releases.pagure.org/sameboy-rpm/SameBoy-0.14.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: SameBoy is an open source Game Boy (DMG) and Game Boy Color (CGB) emulator, written in portable C. It has a native Cocoa front-end for MacOS, an SDL front-end for other operating systems, and a libretro core. It also includes a text-based debugger with expression evaluation.
Fedora Account System Username: sentry
Some things to note: - SameBoy has implementations of GameBoy BootRoms which are also licensed under MIT https://github.com/LIJI32/SameBoy/tree/master/BootROMs - the COMPILER macro is defined to easily allow for reproducable builds on systems with clang installed https://github.com/LIJI32/SameBoy/blob/master/Makefile#L62
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/sameboy-rpm/blob/fecd808869e11ed7f2eb486a685607926b7a1922/... Raw: https://pagure.io/sameboy-rpm/raw/fecd808869e11ed7f2eb486a685607926b7a1922/f...
SRPM URL: https://releases.pagure.org/sameboy-rpm/SameBoy-0.14.2-1.fc33.src1.rpm
Description: SameBoy is an open source Game Boy (DMG) and Game Boy Color (CGB) emulator, written in portable C. It has a native Cocoa front-end for MacOS, an SDL front-end for other operating systems, and a libretro core. It also includes a text-based debugger with expression evaluation.
Fedora Account System Username: sentry This is my first Fedora package so I'm looking for a sponsor
Some things to note: - SameBoy has implementations of GameBoy BootRoms which are also licensed under MIT https://github.com/LIJI32/SameBoy/tree/master/BootROMs - the COMPILER macro is defined to easily allow for reproducable builds on systems with clang installed https://github.com/LIJI32/SameBoy/blob/master/Makefile#L62
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Last Closed| |2021-04-02 16:56:50
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- I am not sure of the legality of the provided roms. They seem to have been extracted from GameBoys, as such the copyright should be held by Nintendo. See https://gbdev.gg8.se/files/roms/bootroms/
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:SoftwareTypes?rd=Licensing/Software... :
Emulators which depend on firmware or ROM files to function may not be included in Fedora, unless the copyright holder(s) for the firmware/ROM files give clear permission for the firmware/ROM files to be distributed (either under a Fedora permissible license or under the Fedora firmware exception criteria). Note: This only covers the situation where an emulator will not run at all without firmware/ROM files. For example, emulators that compile and run, but ship with no game ROMs are not covered by this rule.
The following review is for educational purpose only:
- Please don't use macro prefixed by two underscore, they are reserved for RPM private use:
%{__mkdir_p} → mkdir -p
- You need to verify the %{_datadir}/applications/sameboy.desktop file. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_ins...
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/sameboy.desktop
- I would rename the name and spec filename to sameboy all lowercase
- You need to own %{_datadir}/%{name}
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
and %{_datadir}/%{name}/Shaders
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/Shaders
(But you can just include the whole %{_datadir}/%{name} instead of listing all files under that directory).
- You need to be more specific than this:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/
→
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/*.png
And then Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories.
- Use a more explicit name for your archive:
Source0: https://github.com/LIJI32/SameBoy/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bve...
But as I said it is not possible to package this in Fedora as the ROM are non-free. Try proposing them to RPMFusion non-free repos. I also think this shouldn't be in COPR https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sentry/sameboy/ as it is non-free
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
--- Comment #2 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
I am not sure of the legality of the provided roms. They seem to have been extracted from GameBoys, as such the copyright should be held by Nintendo. See https://gbdev.gg8.se/files/roms/bootroms/
The Bootroms provided by SameBoy are not the same ones that have been dumped from GameBoys in the past The names behind them are not representative of the origin but their usage I have asked Lior, the developer behind SameBoy, and he states that they "[…] are originally written and contain no copyrighted code or data, and are licensed under MIT." I had also stated in the original message that it includes free reimplementations of the bootroms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
--- Comment #3 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
- Please don't use macro prefixed by two underscore, they are reserved for
RPM private use:
%{__mkdir_p} → mkdir -p
I was unaware of that and will change
- You need to verify the %{_datadir}/applications/sameboy.desktop file. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ #_desktop_file_install_usage
Correct I had forgotten to add that when removing the desktop-file-install for the base dekstop while dealing with the name change
- I would rename the name and spec filename to sameboy all lowercase
This was a mistake on my part I had misread the guidelines (or perhaps even read an older version, I am unsure) and named it the same way it was called everywhere publicly
- You need to own %{_datadir}/%{name}
Already present in the spec submitted
and %{_datadir}/%{name}/Shaders
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/Shaders
(But you can just include the whole %{_datadir}/%{name} instead of listing all files under that directory).
see above
- You need to be more specific than this:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/
→
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/*.png
And then Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories.
- Use a more explicit name for your archive:
Source0: https://github.com/LIJI32/SameBoy/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bve.... gz
I was unaware github allowed to download from an arbritary path
But as I said it is not possible to package this in Fedora as the ROM are non-free. Try proposing them to RPMFusion non-free repos. I also think this shouldn't be in COPR https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sentry/sameboy/ as it is non-free
I am making this is a follow-up comment, refer to comment #2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
--- Comment #4 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- I believe this can stay closed for the time being, I had overlooked that SameBoy had dependencies not present in Fedora yet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1945938
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945938 [Bug 1945938] Review Request: rgbds - An assembly toolchain for the Nintendo Game Boy & Game Boy Color
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Keywords| |Reopened
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764 Bug 1944764 depends on bug 1945938, which changed state.
Bug 1945938 Summary: Review Request: rgbds - An assembly toolchain for the Nintendo Game Boy & Game Boy Color https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1945938
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- You should add %set_build_flags before %make_build to set Fedora default build flags. Also check in the build.log that they are correctly applied.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
--- Comment #6 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- Spec: https://pagure.io/sameboy-rpm/raw/948e3e3f5c5fa9c704def86d326f1afe9ea8fc78/f... SRPM: https://releases.pagure.org/sameboy-rpm/sameboy-0.14.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
rpmlint output: sameboy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libretro -> libretto, lib retro, lib-retro 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
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 #7 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package is approved. You still need to find a sponsor as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 306 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/sameboy/review- sameboy/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/sameboy/Shaders [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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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: sameboy-0.14.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sameboy-debuginfo-0.14.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sameboy-debugsource-0.14.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sameboy-0.14.2-1.fc35.src.rpm sameboy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libretro -> libretto, lib retro, lib-retro sameboy.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sameboy sameboy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libretro -> libretto, lib retro, lib-retro 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Oops I forgot to mention this:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/sameboy/Shaders
Please own this directory as well.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Sponsored.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
--- Comment #10 from Tomas Hrcka thrcka@redhat.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sameboy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-3a74bf6b02 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3a74bf6b02
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-3a74bf6b02 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3a74bf6b02 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3a74bf6b02
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944764
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2021-04-02 16:56:50 |2021-05-05 01:21:20
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-3a74bf6b02 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com