https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953 --- Comment #1 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-02-20 22:22:17 CET --- New version of the upstream package, 0.42.06 was released: Spec URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress... SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/23/SRPMs/dwarffortress-... -- 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=3953 --- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-05-12 23:03:44 CEST --- A new version of Dwarf Fortress, 0.43.02, has been released. I have updated the package. Spec URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress... SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/23/SRPMs/dwarffortress-... -- 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=3953 --- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-06-18 05:15:38 CEST --- I forgot to update this ticket when 0.43.03 was released. I've been working on packaging dfhack (which is _not_ ready for review; dfhack bundles a large number of libraries and serious effort will be needed to determining what can be unbundled and what must be provided), which determines the version of DF it's running on top of by computing the checksum of the process. Unfortunately this means that if we strip binaries in *this* package, we break this checksum communication. Thus I've had to disable stripping using the following: %global __os_install_post %{nil} dwarftherapist (which _is_ proposed for review currently) will also probably have the same problem. In any case, here are the updated spec/SRPMs. Spec URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress... SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/23/SRPMs/dwarffortress-... -- 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=3953 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |kwizart(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- You should use: %global debug_package %{nil} %global __strip /bin/true To avoid packaging issues with pre-built applications. Use: ExclusiveArch: x86_64 i686 It's usually better to use one BR per line for better readability with patches when one or another is removed. There are lot of comment in the spec files, please clean them. -- 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=3953 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 | --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- You should use the macro when appropriate: %cmake %make_build Also please prevent timestamp modification when using cp or install (-p). You can order the BR alphabetically (remove glibc-devel, a dependency of gcc, which gcc-c++ depends on). Also mesa-libGL-devel and mesa-liBGLU-devel can use the vendor agnostic version (libGL-devel and libGLU-devel). An appdata would be fine. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2 [Bug 2] Tracker: New packages awaiting review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [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) Generic: [-]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 276480 bytes in 5 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [!]: 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]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8396800 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dwarffortress-0.43.05-6.fc28.x86_64.rpm dwarffortress-0.43.05-6.fc28.src.rpm dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally -> procedural dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden dwarffortress.x86_64: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress dwarffortress.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/dwarffortress/Dwarf_Fortress ['$ORIGIN'] dwarffortress.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/dwarffortress/libgraphics.so dwarffortress.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dwarffortress.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id dwarffortress.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id dwarffortress.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dwarffortress dwarffortress.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally -> procedural dwarffortress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden dwarffortress.src: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally -> procedural dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden dwarffortress.x86_64: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress dwarffortress.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/dwarffortress/Dwarf_Fortress ['$ORIGIN'] dwarffortress.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/dwarffortress/libgraphics.so dwarffortress.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dwarffortress.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dwarffortress 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Issues: - Please quiet unzip in %prep - Since stripping is disabled, you need to manually strip the /usr/libexec/dwarffortress/libgraphics.so - use a %version macro for SOURCE2 Nothing really blocking, so this package is APPROVED for nonfree. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sergio(a)serjux.com --- Comment #12 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; --- (In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #11) As pkgdb admin I got your request but I got this message [1] anyway I think will not create branches in https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/ ... Should / may I approve this ? or other way to put the question, what is the correct procedure ? Cheers, [1] Updating the status of a request does not process the request. The proper way to process requests is via the pkgdb-admin CLI tool. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953 --- Comment #14 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Oh... my bad. It's a shame we can't just get rid of the rpms namespace from this version of pkgdb. :( Anyway, resubmitted, sorry for the trouble. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953 Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |4639 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4639 [Bug 4639] dfhack - Memory hacking library for Dwarf Fortress and a set of tools that use it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.