https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2286 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-05-12 13:39:02 CEST --- Hi! :) I'm testing fedora-review... seems that here is a missing BR: for desktop-file-utils, my mock build fails -- 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=2286 --- Comment #3 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-06-05 01:01:22 CEST --- Thanks for the input! Here's an update: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/mari0.spec SPRM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/mari0-1.6-2.fc16.src.rpm -- 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=2286 --- Comment #5 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-08-15 17:07:40 CEST --- (In reply to comment #3) Jeremy, I can't download the SRPM. I get error 404. -- 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=2286 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |musuruan(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #7 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-08-16 19:57:06 CEST --- Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, x: not appicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [+] 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. [=] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. It does not, but we are RPM Fusion :) [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [x] 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. 22125f68ff41795fa8bafad5d1b1d1a9 mari0-source.zip 22125f68ff41795fa8bafad5d1b1d1a9 mari0-source.zip [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Verified on f17/x86_64 [x] 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 [x] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [x] 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. [x] 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: 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. [x] 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. [x] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [x] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [x] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [x] 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. [x] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [x] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [=] 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: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [=] 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. [x] 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. Verified with f17/x86_64 [x] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Not verified but since there is no compiling I guess it does build. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [x] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [x] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [x] 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. [x] 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. Issues: 1. mario0-extra contains just the desktop file. It is easier and simpler to trace the changes in CVS if you package it unzipped and you don't upload to the lookaside cache. E.g.: Source1: %{name}.desktop 2. BuildRequires: unzip" is not necessary. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 3. Macros are not consistently used. Use %{_datadir} instead of %_datadir; %{name} instead of %name 4. In the desktop file, please be more specific in the Categories key: http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html E.g. use something like: Categories=Game;ArcadeGame; Moreover, you can call the wrapper script you created in Exec. E.g.: Exec=mari0 5. A license is not included. You should query upstream to include 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2286 --- Comment #9 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-08-17 20:49:18 CEST --- Here's the new files: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/mari0.spec SPRM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/mari0-1.6-3.fc17.src.rpm -- 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=2286 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #11 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-08-18 03:14:51 CEST --- (In reply to comment #10) Thanks! :) Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: mari0 Short Description: A recreation of the original Super Mario Bros with a portal gun Owners: jem256 Branches: f16 f17 devel InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: nonfree -- 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=2286 --- Comment #12 from Yajo <yajo.sk8(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-01-20 09:35:26 CET --- (In reply to comment #10) So, why still it is not in the repos? -- 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=2286 --- Comment #14 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2013-01-21 21:40:19 CET --- Whoops, my apologies: I forgot to build this ;) -- 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.