[Bug 253781] Review Request: outerspace - client for 4x on-line strategy game

Wed Aug 29 03:04:38 UTC 2007

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: outerspace - client for 4x on-line strategy game

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253781

------- Additional Comments From nsboyle at gmail.com  2007-08-28 23:04 EST -------
I'm not sponsored, so this isn't official.  Some items have been omitted either
because I'm not sure how to reliably answer them, or they just absolutely don't
apply.  Complete list is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

ALSO, please note that this review is based on your original .src.rpm, since you
linked the binary package on your last update.  If anything I point out was
fixed in new package, please disregard :)

OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review
-->No output
OK - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the ["Packaging/LicensingGuidelines" Licensing Guidelines].
NOT OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
--> COPYING says GPLv2, source files says GPLv2 or later.  AFAIK, what the
source says shows the actual "intent" of the author for licensing.  As such,
license should be GPLv2+.  Please see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-4d5634799c488896bc50697288213a0b2d9acbae
OK - MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
NOT OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
--> Version in src.rpm is 30ca7ba6d3b8e632f4ec611a565fb445, upstream is
3ee9e7890392acd53cd5487f33f84f48 (this may be fixed by newer package, but
obviously I can't tell)
NOT OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one supported architecture.
--> Last errors reported by mock (i386 FC7) are:
/usr/lib/python2.5/distutils/dist.py:263: UserWarning: Unknown distribution
option: 'windows'
  warnings.warn(msg)
running install
error: invalid Python installation: unable to open
/usr/lib/python2.5/config/Makefile (No such file or directory)
OK - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion
of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK? - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
--> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT could be %{buildroot}
OK - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
? - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
--> Not sure what the PKG-INFO file is (something for Python?), but contents
looks suspect.  Use your judgement on that.  If it's required to run... it
shouldn't be in %doc
NOT OK - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the
desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged
GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
spec file with your explanation.
--> See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-43fa82f212954e9288ab00a4f250403353c1813d
, basically, you're missing the desktop-file-install command
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Misc:  
You incremented the minor version number in your new .spec... whereas you want
to leave that number alone (since it corresponds to upstream source) and instead
increment the Release: number, which corresponds to the package version.  Don't
forget to update the package's %changelog!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.