[Bug 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=785371

--- Comment #21 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> 2012-02-07 05:07:49 EST ---
You forgot to increment the release tag when submitting spec + srpm. Please
increment it each time you submit a new version, like in last free-solid.spec.

You have a lot of errors and warnings. We need to apply a number of fixes to
get it easier.
- It seems that your spec file is not valid utf. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8
- You seem to have network issues. Is possible for you to run rpmlint with a
working internet connection?
- Description line(s) are too long. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#description-line-too-long
- You have a lot of unstripped-binary-or-object, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unstripped-binary-or-object
- You need to be more careful when writing the changelog, and run rpmlint
before submitting to avoid incoherent-version-in-changelog (the changelog entry
should match %version-%release)
- Fix the non-conffile-in-etc warning, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#non-conffile-in-etc

You also have some things to talk with upstream about:
  - speed-dreams.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libtgfclient.so exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
  - speed-dreams.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libtgf.so exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
  - I think I can provide you a patch for the incorrect-fsf-address, to send to
upstream. An updated COPYING is at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
  - A lot of empty readme.txt, ask what to do (remove in distribution?).
  - The missing manpage warnings. This is not a blocker for Fedora, but for
Debian/Ubuntu. So some simple manpages might help.
  - Multiple invalid-soname errors. See e. g.,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=176617. In general,
it seems like a bad idea to have non-versioned names, but it might possibly be
acceptable if the libraries are outside of ld.so's search path (?).

-- 
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.