http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122 --- Comment #1 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-03-19 17:53:39 --- Some comments: 1. %global baseversion 0137 #global sourceupdate 4 %if 0%{?sourceupdate} Version: %{baseversion}u%{sourceupdate} %else Version: %{baseversion} %endif Release: 1%{?dist} #global sourceupdate 4 -> #global sourceupdate u4 Version: 0.%{baseversion} Release: 1.{?sourceupdate}%{?dist} Note:{?sourceupdate} should be added in release section as fedora naming guideline, such as 0.137-2.u1.fc13 3. %ifarch x86_64 ppc64-> %ifarch x86_64 ppc64 sparc64 s390 Also you can not define suffix64 in specfile by using wildcard instead. install -pm 755 %{name}%{?suffix64}d %{buildroot}%{_bindir} ->install -pm 755 %{name}*d %{buildroot}%{_bindir} install -pm 755 chdman jedutil ldplayer%{?suffix64} ldresample ldverify \-> install -pm 755 chdman jedutil ldplayer* ldresample ldverify \ 4. Source0-> http://www.aarongiles.com/mirror/releases/%{name}0137s.exe 5. Patch0 not used in specfile 6. Provides: sdlmame = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: sdlmame < 0136-2 -> Provides: sdlmame = %{baseversion}-%{release} Obsoletes: sdlmame < 0137-1 7. duplicate file found in subpackage. %doc docs/license.txt %doc docs/license.txt You should not rely all on rpmlint output. -- 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=1122 --- Comment #3 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-03-19 20:55:47 --- 1. I believe that the whole dance with splitting version between %version and %release is to ensure proper upgrade paths. I checked that it works, 0137u10 > 0137u1 < 0137. And putting the "u" into the %global will break the algorithm which applies the patches sequentially to the "u" releases. I know it was this way in SDLMAME, but RB released it as full zips. I never liked the versions like 0.137-0.1.0136u1 anyway. 2. I can't see it ;) 3. I could, but I can't do it for the main binary name, which would lead to inconsistent use of macros. I can add other architectures, sure. 4. That's just one of the mirrors, I guess I could hardcode it as we do for sourceforge/nongnu/whatever. 5. Valid point. This is a leftover from testing a bug. I'll fix that. 6. Obsoletes is OK, point 1 for Provides. 7. I can kill the duplicate docs, no problem. The ini file was put into the subdir so that cab builders could place config files in there without polluting /etc/. ui.bdc was generated from ui.bdf, which was shipped with sdlmame zip. Aaron said it might return someday, so I left it in. -- 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=1122 --- Comment #5 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-03-20 03:23:18 --- Wikipedia use 0.137 and 0.136u4 as version for mame. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAME BTW, did you already split out the bundled libs included in EMBOSS? -- 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=1122 --- Comment #7 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-03-21 04:23:00 --- (In reply to comment #6) The spec seems perfect except some minor problems. 1.OPT_FLAGS='%{optflags}' is useless. You should export optflags in the %build section. export CCOMFLAGS = "%{optflags}" export CONLYFLAGS = "%{optflags}" export CPPONLYFLAGS = "%{optflags}" 2. Since Mame build with GCONF2, maybe you need some rpm scriptlets(I'm not sure about this). See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GConf -- 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=1122 --- Comment #9 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-03-21 07:21:07 --- (In reply to comment #8) See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2065568 -- 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=1122 --- Comment #11 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-03-21 08:52:21 --- (In reply to comment #9) I also recommand you to add VERBOSE = 1 in the build line to generate verbose build information, so that we can find useful information from rpmbuild output. -- 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=1122 --- Comment #13 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-03-21 13:38:52 --- (In reply to comment #12) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=395) [details] Whole diff file for ubuntu here: http://sdlmame4ubuntu.org/cur/major/pool/unofficial/m/mame/mame_0.137-0ub... Notes: 1.It may be better to export SUFFIX64="" at build line to make the consistency of name between 64 bit and 32bit fedora. Defining arch_flagsas you do in sdlmame is also recommended, because for some arches we have to define PTR64, BIGENDIAN, NOASM, FORCE_DRC_C_BACKEND manually(e.g. PRT64=1 for ppc64). 2.mame 0.137 for ubuntu move ctrlr from %{_datadir}/%{name}/ctrlr to /etc/%{name}/ctrlr several months ago (I'm not sure if it's the right place for ctrlr), See mame.ini. -- 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=1122 --- Comment #15 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-03-21 15:06:04 --- formal review here: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. <<output if not already posted>> [+] 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. [FIXME?: covers this list and more] [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a rpmfusion 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. <<md5sum checksum>>1b70adfbe6aa35959881b82e48f93d82 [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] 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 [N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [N/A] 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. [N/A] 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. [N/A] 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. [N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N/A] 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. [N/A] 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. [N/A] 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: [N/A] 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. [N/A] 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. [+] 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. [=] 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. [N/A] 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. -- 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=1122 Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |4 -- 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=1122 Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122 Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #18 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-03-21 15:22:27 --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: mame Short Description: Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator Owners: belegdol Branches: F-12 F-11 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: nonfree -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122 --- Comment #20 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-03-21 15:31:31 --- It seems to use mame.ini, I just checked. And yes, I plan to package sdlmess. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122 --- Comment #22 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-03-21 15:46:17 --- VERBOSE=1 adds -v to gcc, I don't think that's a must. How about stripping the @: Spec URL: http://homepage.hispeed.ch/belegdol/mame/mame.spec SRPM URL: http://homepage.hispeed.ch/belegdol/mame/mame-0.137-4.fc13.src.rpm Changes: - Stripped @ from the commands to make the build more verbose -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122 --- Comment #24 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-04-02 07:06:40 --- (In reply to comment #23) Maybe you need to contact cvs admin directly. The package is OK for replacing sdlmame in rpmfusion. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122 Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- 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.