[Bug 549366] Review Request: flaw - Small multiplayer action game

Sun Mar 14 17:45:02 UTC 2010

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549366

--- Comment #11 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com> 2010-03-14 13:44:55 EDT ---
Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, /:not applicable

MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.

$ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/SRPMS/flaw-1.2.2-4.fc12.src.rpm
flaw.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiplayer -> multiplexer,
multiplier, multiplicity
flaw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplexer,
multiplier, multiplicity
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/flaw-1.2.2-4.fc12.x86_64.rpm
flaw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiplayer -> multiplexer,
multiplier, multiplicity
flaw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer ->
multiplexer, multiplier, multiplicity
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint
/home/andrea/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/flaw-debuginfo-1.2.2-4.fc12.x86_64.rpm
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/framerate.h
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/main.cc
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/wizard.cc
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/wizard.h
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/game.cc
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/framerate.cc
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/game.h
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/menu.h
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/menu.cc
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/fireball.cc
flaw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/flaw-1.2.2/src/fireball.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 5 warnings.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
15b1208a3e8036377068586d1bdc118cd1fb4a8b  flaw-1.2.2.tar.gz
15b1208a3e8036377068586d1bdc118cd1fb4a8b  ../SOURCES/flaw-1.2.2.tar.gz
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Tested on F12/x86_64
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[/] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[/] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[/] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[/] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on devel/x86_64
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Tested on F12/x86_64
[/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[/] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[=] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.

Issues:

1. Please, always post rpmlint output when you submit a package review. The
spurious-executable-perm and script-without-shebang errors must be fixed
removing the executable premissions in %prep.

2. This is not correct:
Source1:        %{name}-%{version}/data/%{name}.desktop

Why did you place that in a subdir? Anyway, rpmbuild ignore this.

3. There is also something wrong in this:
%configure --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}

When you then use %doc to mark documentation files, the docdir you already
installed with "make install" is wiped out.

[..]
test -z "/usr/share/doc/flaw-1.2.2" || /bin/mkdir -p
"/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/
flaw-1.2.2-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/flaw-1.2.2"
 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 README COPYING AUTHORS ChangeLog INSTALL
'/builddir/
build/BUILDROOT/flaw-1.2.2-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/flaw-1.2.2'
[..]
+
DOCDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/flaw-1.2.2-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/flaw-1.2.2
+ export DOCDIR
+ rm -rf
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/flaw-1.2.2-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/flaw-1.2.2
+ /bin/mkdir -p
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/flaw-1.2.2-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/flaw-1.2.2
+ cp -pr COPYING AUTHORS ChangeLog README
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/flaw-1.2.2-4.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/doc/flaw-1.2.2
[..]

Please see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_prefixes

I suggest you not to use %doc to mark documentation files. You will also have
to manually remove the INSTALL file (in %install) and mark the documentation
directory like this (in %files):
%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}

4. You should try to preserves the files' timestamps, eg. cp -p or install -p. 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps

Please fix at least 1, 2 and 3 and I'll approve this package.

NEEDSWORK

-- 
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.