http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309 --- Comment #2 from Felix Kaechele <felix(a)fetzig.org&gt; 2009-01-09 10:04:49 --- You are right. It would probably be best to wait for the next stable release and then import it into Fedora. -- 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=309 --- Comment #4 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-09 12:31:56 --- I don't see anything wrong in submitting this now to RPM Fusion and moving it later to Fedora (with a quick review since the package should not have any problems if we review it here now). Looking at the spec file I see: * macro usage should be improved in source URL: Source0: http://dl.sourceforge.net/openttd/%{name}-%{version}-source.tar.bz2 also use %{name} instead of openttd. * desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" \ --dir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications %{SOURCE1} You must not use a vendor. Please read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor * Moreover, why didn't you use the upstream desktop file? Cannot it be adjusted with desktop-file-install or patched to be compliant? * You have at least an unowned directory. %{_datadir}/pixmaps is not provided by any of the packages you require. -- 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=309 --- Comment #6 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-09 13:19:18 --- Andrea, DesktopFileVendor is proposed standard. Was it accepted? %{_datadir}/pixmaps is provided by filesystem package which is not required to be listed in Requires. Oliver, Unfortunately no, legally it could be get only by owners of original transport tycoon game. That's why I'm suggesting to package variant where free alternative available. -- 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=309 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |musuruan(a)gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-09 13:48:01 --- (In reply to comment #6) Yes, it was: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02273.html === Fedora Packaging Committee Guideline Proposals === * FESCo had no objections to the guideline proposals approved by the FPC. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 Unluckily https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_... still needs to be updated. -- 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=309 --- Comment #10 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-11 21:45:15 --- There is problem with building this srpm - a typo "readme.txti" in %files section and %{_desktopdir} macro seem to be missing. Is timidity++ is really required? Wouldn't it be sufficient it to use libtimidity? Also, it may be compiled with fontconfig support. This perhaps should be enabled too (by adding fontconfig-devel to BuildRequires). -- 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=309 --- Comment #12 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-22 18:34:11 --- (In reply to comment #11) * Rpmbuild failed when building with mock F9/i386. * The makefile suppress the output when calling many commands including the compiler. In this way neither the submitter nor the reviewer can see how the files are complied, linked and so on. Using %{optflags} is mandatory and with the unpatched upstream makefile there is no way to check them: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags * macro style is not consistent. You should use either %{__make} or make. Not mixing both syntaxes. I suggest you to use the latter because it is more readable. I cannot think of a good reason to use the former. A complete discussion about these case has been discussed in fedora-devel-list: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-December/msg01855.html * The GTK+ icon cache scriptlets are not the same used in the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache * It seems to me that most of the documents in the docs directory are not aimed at the Fedora end user and therefore they must not be included. I would package only these ones in that directory: docs/Manual.txt docs/multiplayer.txt * changelog should be a faithful description of the changes. Entries like the followings are not useful :( - even more improvements made [...] - incorporated suggestions made by reviewers (In reply to comment #9) I really cannot see why you cannot use the upstream desktop file for openttd. The upstream desktop file seems OK to me. Even the categories can be adjusted with a single parameter in the make invocation (--menu-group="Game;Simulation;"). Moreover, Fedora mantra is upstream, upstream and upstream. * A question. Isn't the dedicated server redundant? The normal client can start a dedicated server with the "-D" parameter. I understand it brings in less dependency, but is it really worth the trouble? When I can build it I'll continue my analysis. -- 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=309 --- Comment #14 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-07 14:31:56 --- OpenTTD 0.7.0 beta was released (http://www.openttd.org/en/news/85) not so long time ago. And it doesn't require abandonware files. Any plans to update or just perform proposed fixes? -- 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=309 --- Comment #15 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-09 13:03:26 --- Created an attachment (id=109) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=109) Cleanup patch for spec I did update to 0.7.0 beta and clean up of spec myself. It removes (I hope, all) questionable moments and simply bugs that was in original Hany's spec which this was based on. The result is clean and simple spec and looks like it written from scratch: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/openttd.spec It could be used with graphics replacement (called OpenGFX), and, I think, could go to Fedora even if it is beta. -- 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=309 --- Comment #17 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-09 15:14:45 --- I find that this package desire some more work: - It should be patched to use system squirrel. - Need to remove possible trademarks in summary and description. - May be ask fedora-legal if it has enough dissimilarity and doesn't violate trademarks before review submission to Fedora? - Need to create package for opengfx game data "openttd-opengfx". - Need to check whether this patch works (it should ignore if sample.cat is missing) and file it upstream if it works: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/openttd-0.7.0-ignore-sample-cat.patch Would be good if you do something from this list. I can co-maintain it afterwards. -- 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=309 --- Comment #19 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-10 15:30:56 --- (In reply to comment #18) Oh, yes. Though they mostly fix warnings and improve VM fairness between AI players, their changes seems to be incompatible with upstream one: http://vcs.openttd.org/svn/log/trunk/src/3rdparty/squirrel?mode=follow_co... One more improvement should be made - documentation for AI API should be generated from src/ai/api/Doxyfile and put into -devel-docs subpackage. -- 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=309 --- Comment #21 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-16 16:35:06 --- OpenTTD 0.7.0-RC1 was released today. Are there any progress with this task? -- 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=309 --- Comment #23 from Felix Kaechele <felix(a)fetzig.org&gt; 2009-03-22 15:54:21 --- So I finally submitted this for review in Fedora. Anyone up for some review-action? :) See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491518 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491519 -- 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=309 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com Blocks|3 | -- 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.