[Bug 221065] Review Request: warzone2100 - Innovative 3D real-time strategy
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jan 9 18:03:35 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: warzone2100 - Innovative 3D real-time strategy
------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-01-09 13:03 EST -------
Ok, here's the review.
* rpmlint output:
W: warzone2100-data no-documentation --- can be ignored, silent otherwise
* package is named well
* spec file is named well
* package meets Packaging Guidelines
!* package license is GPL, COPYING file included, however, see NOTES below
* License field in spec file matches actual license
* license file is included in %doc
* spec file is written in American English and legible
* package source md5sum matches upstream source:
* package builds successfully on fc6/i386 (built in mock)
* BuildRequires are good
* package handles locales properly (no locales)
* package has no need for %post and %postun sections
* package is not relocatable
* package owns directories it creates
* no duplicate entries in %files
* file permissions are good
* proper %clean section
* spec file macros are used consistently
!* main package contains code, -data subpackage contains what seems to be
permissable content - see NOTES, below
* no -doc, -devel subpackages necessary
* contents in %doc not required for runtime functionality of application
* .desktop present and properly handled
* package builds in mock (fc6/i386)
* package functions as described :-)
* subpackages require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
There is a potential problem with the game's data files; according to upstream
they have contacted the developers to no avail, and released the data as GPL (as
per the README.COPYING file, included in the package).
Personally, I agree with the following from README.COPYING:
"Since in the absence of a license the released data could not be distributed,
we find that interpreting the license for the data as being under the same
license as the source to be the best interpretation to fit the intention behind
Since the game has no significant game engine (significant==well known,
successful), it is assumed that the GPL-release was done to "let the game live
on", in good spirit; logically, it is therefore quite safe to assume a free
license for the data as well. Further evidence supporting this is the fact that
the game's movies AND the code for the movie player were never actually released
along with the rest of the GPL'ed package (see upstream URL for details);
obviously, these were not supposed to be distributed.
This package meets all the packaging guidelines, but suffers from a slight
"grey-area" concerning the game data.
I am very much inclined to approve this, but in all fairness it needs to be
addressed by someone more schooled in these matters than me. Therefore, I am
postponing approval, and will ask for assistance on fedora-extras.
Mamoru, any thoughts on this?
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the package-review