https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-11-15 16:26:52 CET --- I'm planning to ship this for el6, f18, f19, f20. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 --- Comment #2 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-01 21:25:28 CET --- - Compilation uses the 'dhewm3/neo/idlib/Base64.cpp' file; it's released with a BSD license. Please, update License tag. - There are bundled files in the neo/framework/minizip/ directory. They are already packaged in the 'minizip' package. Please, remove them in the %setup section and add the 'minizip-devel' BR. Perform the rpm buildings newly in koji, even for EPEL and post the links. - Use %global instead of %define. Also: - Fix 'file-not-utf8' warning of the file '/usr/share/doc/dhewm3/COPYING.txt' See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainer... - Fix 'strange-permission' warning of the file 'dhewm3-git-checkout.sh' - 'invalid-url' warning in 'Source0' can be fixed by indicating a direct link to the zipped source archive file https://github.com/dhewm/dhewm3/archive/6d8108c508a0bde5c2bea4dec58fa2ca5... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version) GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "zlib/libpng". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/review- dhewm3/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define commit 6d8108c5 [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dhewm3-1.3.1.1304-20.git6d8108c5.fc21.i686.rpm dhewm3-1.3.1.1304-20.git6d8108c5.fc21.src.rpm dhewm3.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dhewm's -> Hewer's dhewm3.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dhewm3/COPYING.txt dhewm3.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dhewm3 dhewm3.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dhewm3ded dhewm3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dhewm's -> Hewer's dhewm3.src: W: strange-permission dhewm3-git-checkout.sh 0751L dhewm3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dhewm3-1.3.1.1304-git6d8108c5.tar.bz2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dhewm3 dhewm3.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dhewm's -> Hewer's dhewm3.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dhewm3/COPYING.txt dhewm3.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dhewm3 dhewm3.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dhewm3ded 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dhewm3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libSDL2-2.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libcurl.so.4 libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libjpeg.so.62 libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEGTURBO_6.2) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2) libm.so.6 libogg.so.0 libopenal.so.1 libpthread.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libvorbis.so.0 libvorbisfile.so.3 libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dhewm3: dhewm3 dhewm3(x86-32) doom3-engine Unversioned so-files -------------------- dhewm3: /usr/lib/dhewm3/base.so dhewm3: /usr/lib/dhewm3/d3xp.so Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386-rpmfusion_free -u https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 --- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-02 12:57:08 CET --- (In reply to comment #2) Done. Fone. Done. Done, I've applied the GitHub sourceURL as specified in the packaging guidelines. The script file was a leftover when I was unbundling zlib, jpeg, etc. Unfortunately this is not so easy. The bundled Minizip has been customized with one extra function: https://github.com/dhewm/dhewm3/blob/master/neo/framework/minizip/unzip.c... https://github.com/dhewm/dhewm3/blob/master/neo/framework/minizip/unzip.c... In fact it's the only libraries that has been left bundled when the original Id source was cleaned up. I'm looking if I can remove it with a patch; If anyone wants to give some help I would greatly appreciate it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 --- Comment #6 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-04 16:07:18 CET --- (In reply to comment #5) Since RPM Fusion follows the Fedora packaging guidelines, we need to treat that as a "Bundling exception". See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions Please, don't open a ticket in FPC's trac as guide lines say, but explain your justifications in the RPM Fusion ML by answering to the " Standard Questions" reported. If none is unfavorable, we can complete this review definitely. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 --- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-16 09:01:48 CET --- (In reply to comment #7) Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.