A quick review of the spec file looks good. The only minor nick pick I can see is that you typically don't need the "/" after %{buildroot} because the macro that follows it usually has a leading slash, for instance if you type: $ rpm -E %{_bindir} into shell it will come back with "/usr/bin" not "usr/bin"

Great! Please don't forget to do a love-unstable package, so we can have the 0.8.0 version needed to play mari0 (which I guess is why this package took some attention after such a long time, BTW). I have spec+srpm files for that, but I don't know if this bug is the right place to put them. Also, it would be quite easy with what you already have...

You seem to have not entered the mandatory "Why rpmfusion" part of an rpmfusion review request, Judging from your "not tetris 2" review request it is because of the need for mpg123. May I suggest that instead of submitting this to rpmfusion you simply disable mpg123 support? And then re-encode the sound for any games you want to package to .ogg ? There are quite a few other examples of packages in Fedora where we've done the same.

(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > On the other hand, what you say seems a good idea. That's OpenSUSE's approach, > I think: > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=love.spec&package=l... > > Anyway, I think that having also a mpg123 version into RPMFusion would be > useful for some cases. Good point, I can rename this to love-freeworld and submit the modified version to fedora.

(In reply to comment #8) > > Good point, I can rename this to love-freeworld and submit the modified version > > to fedora. > > Yes and no, the problem is that both versions then will either conflict, or we > will need > to rename various files inside the packages. IE rename the -freeworld binary to > /usr/bin/love-freeworld > and I guess have the rest of the files in a love-common package which then > would be provided by > the Fedora package. IMHO adding a "conflicts" tag is better. Why would you want to have both free and nonfree versions installed?

What you maybe will want to have are different versions of it installed, because some games work only with one of them. I guess this is possible with symlinks, like when having several python versions and `python` links to the default one.

> I guess the big question is are there a few good Free games using love which > can go to Fedora, because if > there aren't any I wonder if it is worth the trouble. Stabyourself.net games are great, but their license won't fit in Fedora, so with an end-user ponit of view, maybe this would not be needed. But then we would be forgetting people who may want to develop LÖVE games in Fedora.

Hi, (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > Good point, I can rename this to love-freeworld and submit the modified version > > > to fedora. > > > > Yes and no, the problem is that both versions then will either conflict, or we > > will need > > to rename various files inside the packages. IE rename the -freeworld binary to > > /usr/bin/love-freeworld > > and I guess have the rest of the files in a love-common package which then > > would be provided by > > the Fedora package. > > IMHO adding a "conflicts" tag is better. Why would you want to have both free > and nonfree versions installed? Because if there is a Fedora version, then games in Fedora will be tested with that version not the freeworld version, the Fedora version may even be a different version, or have some bugfixes applied to make a specific game work which have not yet found there way into the rpmfusion version. Even more important as rpmfusion we've made the promise that we will never replace Fedora packages like for example atrpms does. This has been a very concious decision made from day one, this also means no Conflicts. > What you maybe will want to have are different versions of it installed, > because some games work only with one of them. I guess this is possible with > symlinks, like when having several python versions and `python` links to the > default one. Right, and if you solve that problem, you probably also have the problem of having a freeworld and a regular version installed at the same time solved. > > I guess the big question is are there a few good Free games using love which > > can go to Fedora, because if > > there aren't any I wonder if it is worth the trouble. > > Stabyourself.net games are great, but their license won't fit in Fedora, so > with an end-user ponit of view, maybe this would not be needed. But then we > would be forgetting people who may want to develop LÖVE games in Fedora. I think that if currently there is no suitable content for Fedora, that then it makes sense to just have love in rpmfusion for now and don't do a Fedora version. That still leaves the question of the package name, we could anticipate there be a version for Fedora in the future, and name the package love-freeworld. And I assume you will be using alternatives to deal with having multiple versions installed ? If you use alternatives and embed a version in the binary name and let alternatives manage a symlink to it, then you might as well put freeworld in the versioned binary name too, then it will be really easy to later add LOVE to Fedora too. I also suggest if you want todo multiple version to have a noarch love-common package with the following files: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/*/*.svg %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop %{_datadir}/mime/packages/%{name}.xml So that these can be shared between all the version. Alternatively you could let all packages own them but will lead to installation conflicts if one version has different versions of these files then other versions. Last I still would like to see some discussion about love being a too generic name and using love2d as name, at least for the package name.