http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024 Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xavier(a)bachelot.org --- Comment #1 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2010-01-04 12:25:15 --- I'll review it, if no one is faster than me. I packaged the 0.0.1 version some weeks ago, but didn't submit it because of the artwork issue. The 0.0.2 version is starting to fix this. dangling symlink is fine. Some preliminary notes, comparing with my own spec : - You set the license to GPLv3 while I set it to GPLv3+ in my own package. I'll check which of us is right. - Typo in a comment (# Fix char encondig) - I removed the whole $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/pushover rather than just the readme.txt file, as it was the only file in it. Not sure this is still true for 0.0.2, but anyway, it's better to have all files in %{_docdir}/pushover-%{version}. -- 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=1024 Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2010-01-05 00:24:29 --- OK: spec file is properly named OK: package is properly named OK: Spec is legible NOK: use of macros is consistent spurious %{buildroot} when installing the desktop file OK: tarball match upstream : b0b6b584a57db0ca6ec69647fba67369 NOK: License field match the actual license and is acceptable The non-free artwork should be acknowledge for. Actually, I'm not sure the package is acceptable until all the proprietary artwork from the original game has been replaced. Ok: BuildRoot is correct OK: BuildRequires and Requires are correct OK: no bundled copied of libraries OK: Desktop file is validated and installed OK: scriplets are correct. OK: locales are properly handled OK: defattr is correct OK: %doc is correct and not needed at runtime Ok: builds in mock OK: all files and directories are properly packaged OK: doesn't own dirs it shouldn't OK: files/dirs perms are correct OK: files/dirs names are UTF-8 OK; rpmlint output is clean ; pushover.i686: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pushover/data/FreeSans.ttf /usr/share/fonts/gnu-free/FreeSans.ttf 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The warning is expected and can be ignored. Ok: final provides and requires are correct -- 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=1024 Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024 --- Comment #5 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2010-01-06 11:59:05 --- The package looks fine to me now. Waiting on the outcome of the licensing issue with the graphics. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024 --- Comment #7 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-01-12 17:25:22 --- (In reply to comment #6) I made a request here: https://fedorahosted.org/design-team/ticket/116 Anyway, since the package seems OK, I wonder if we can go on and have it in RPM Fusion for the time being. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024 --- Comment #9 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2010-01-22 00:55:55 --- I still think the non-redistributable graphics are a blocker. Hopefully, upstream will get rid off of them in a not so distant future, but until then, the package cannot be accepted. We've done everything we could to get this moving forward, I guess there's not much we can do now beside re-doing the graphics ourselves, and this is definitely not something in my skillset. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024 Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #11 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2010-05-19 20:19:43 --- The package is fine with regards to packaging rules. If noone objected to some of the graphics being nonfree, then I'm fine with that. btw, more themes have been replaced with free alternative upstream, it might worth packaging a snapshot rather than latest release. APPROVED -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024 NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- 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.