http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 Felix Kaechele <felix(a)fetzig.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 | --- Comment #1 from Felix Kaechele <felix(a)fetzig.org&gt; 2009-01-11 18:47:45 --- This isn't actually blocking Bug 3. Sorry, my mistake! -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oget.fedora(a)gmail.com Blocks|2 |3 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-12 18:17:04 --- The package needs some work. Here's the initial review: * Package does not build in mock. Must add BR: libpng-devel desktop-file-utils * It would be better to supply a fetch script (see e.g. ffmpeg) to gather and pack the svn sources. You should remove the .svn directories from the source tarball. * The source contains fonts in the game/fonts directory. They must be removed and symlinks to internal Fedora fonts should be provided. Don't forget to add the relevant Requires. * There are a vast amount of precompiled binary files in the tarball. They need to be removed during %prep (or it would be even better if they are removed in the fetch script). e.g. .res .dll files. There may be more, just run and look at the output of find . -exec file {} \; * The application has support for various additional libraries. See src/lib directory, also http://ultrastardeluxe.xtremeweb-hosting.net/wiki/doku.php?id=development... . For instance we have libprojectM in Fedora. You can most likely add some flags to the configure command to make these compile. The general policy is to enable as much as possible. * The package must own the directory: %{_datadir}/%{name} * The package must not own the directory %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/ Just use %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/*/* in the %files section. * Please make use of the %{name} macro. * Please yield the guidelines for icon cache: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache * the --vendor field should be blank for new desktop applications. Also please remove the Category "Application" and add a GenericName in the .desktop file. You can also add some audio related category(ies) to the .desktop file. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #4 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-19 01:14:01 --- You are quite welcome :) Here is the last part of the review. I think this will cover everything remaining: ! The tarball in the SRPM slightly differs from the snapshot I downloaded via the fetch script. The fonts were not removed from the tarball in the SRPM but the one I downloaded with the fetch script has them removed. But this is not a blocker since you are not using/packaging them. * Please preserve the timestamps of the non-compiled files. e.g. the documentation files touch -r original_file modified_file ? You can use libprojectM_VERSION=$(pkg-config --modversion libprojectM) instead of hard-coded libprojectM_VERSION='1.2.0' I leave this up to you. (You don't have to BR:pkgconfig since it will be pulled up by other BRs) ? There is a hard-coded path in ultrastardx-external-fonts.patch. You might want to use sed and %{_datadir} instead of a patch (or patch+sed). Up to you. * For the versioning, I think it is best to obey the guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_pack... See the second alsa-lib example (Upgrade Path Example (alsa-lib): ) Well, when you do this change you will get an rpmlint complaint. You will have to cheat (modify the previous version in the changelog). I think it's ok. Don't tell anyone :) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #6 from Felix Kaechele <felix(a)fetzig.org&gt; 2009-01-20 20:24:06 --- Uhhmm... don't use the openttd spec :) Just use the same link as above :) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #8 from Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2009-01-21 22:58:51 --- (In reply to comment #7) Actually the above explanation is not technically correct, as the following example proves : [wolfy@wolfy ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp Epoch1 :0 Version1 :1.1.1 Release1 :0.1.20090120 Epoch2 :0 Version2 :1.1.1 Release2 :0.1.20090121 0:1.1.1-0.1.20090121 is newer or in the short format: [wolfy@wolfy ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090120.fc10.src.rpm ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090121.fc10.src.rpm 0:ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090121.fc10.src.rpm is newer In this particular case, bumping the integer that comes before the date is just cosmetic in order to help humans. It MUST be incremented if a new version of the src.rpm using the _same_ source as before is created, or if the snapshot name changes in a way that preserves the version but would somehow make yum believe that it is older than the previous version. For instance if upstream decides that the new name of the source would be 1.1.1-v3.tar.gz, this would lead to a hypothetical ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.v3.fc10.src.rpm. In this case we would get: [wolfy@wolfy ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090120.fc10.src.rpm ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.v3.fc10.src.rpm 0:ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090120.fc10.src.rpm is newer which obviously would be undesired (the newer package would appear to be older in NEVRA terms). Therefore in this hypothetical case bumping 0.1 to 0.2 is mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #10 from Felix Kaechele <felix(a)fetzig.org&gt; 2009-02-09 21:24:00 --- The newest SVN version seems to work with the newer ffmpeg releases. However rawhide is somewhat broken in mock atm (at least on my machine) so I was unable to test it in mock. Furthermore I rewrote the changelog to be more meaningful. SPEC: http://felix.fetzig.org/rpms/review/ultrastardx.spec SRPM: http://felix.fetzig.org/rpms/review/ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.2.20090209.fc10.s... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #12 from Felix Kaechele <felix(a)fetzig.org&gt; 2009-02-23 00:19:13 --- That was temporary and should be fixed by now. Thanks for reporting. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #14 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-02-23 18:49:18 --- Additional note: Before you commit to CVS, please update the icon cache scriptlets according to the revised guidelines: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01273.... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Icon_Cache -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #16 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-02-25 18:01:16 --- (In reply to comment #15) Done (btw, to make sure the request is definitely seen let the bug block Bug 33 next time) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #18 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-03-25 14:49:12 --- Who did the import and how? A few binary files afaics landet in CVS for some reason: ultrastardx/devel/ultrastardx-20090303.tar.lzma ultrastardx/devel/ultrastardx-256x256.png ultrastardx/devel/ultrastardx-32x32.png Those should have gone/should be moved to the look-aside cache, as - CVS is not for binary files - it slows a full CVS down a lot due to the size -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #20 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-03-25 17:53:14 --- (In reply to comment #19) Yeah, I guess it does not detect png and lzma as files that need uploading to look-aside cache. Xavier, could you maybe take a look? might be a nice fix for Fedora as well (a least if it isn't fixed there already) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.