[Bug 740] Review request: meka - Multi machine emulator for MS-DOS, MS-Windows and GNU/Linux

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=740





--- Comment #15 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran at uddeborg.se>  2010-11-30 20:03:56 ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
+ = Checked, ok
N = Se note N below


=== MUST ITEMS ===
[1-4] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[5-6] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[1] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+] 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.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[+] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[7] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional.
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
[+] 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.
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[8] Each package must consistently use macros.
[6] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[-] 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.
[-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
[+] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


=== SHOULD ITEMS ===
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[9] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[10-11] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and
left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[-] 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.
[-] 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.
[3] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

=== Issues ===
1. meka.i686: W: invalid-license Distributable
Fedora doesn't accept "Distributable" as a license any more.  In this case
there are several different licenses in effect, and this should be noted by
enumerating them with "and" in between. 
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios)
 Most code is covered by the license of sources.txt, but I also found LGPLv2+
(libs/seal/include/audio.h), zlib/libpng license (libs/libpng/* and
srcs/libaddon/zip/*), and a non-commercial use license (srcs/z8marat and
srcs/m6502/*).  Even if it gets a bit long, it is probably best to enumerate
them.

2. meka.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/libexec/meka/meka
I believe the problem here is that nasm sets __OUTPUT_FORMAT__ "elf32" rather
than "elf".  Thus, the %ifidn test gets false, and your patch has no effect.  I
haven't tried it all the way through, though; leave that to you! :-)

3. meka.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary meka
It's a "should", but I guess it could be hard to convince upstream to make one,
given that meka is in maintenance mode.  But it can't hurt to suggest it, I
guess. :-)

4. meka.src:28: W: macro-in-comment %{ix86}
Maybe not a big deal, but could you explain why you have commented out the use
of the %ix86 macro, and hardcoded i686?

5. The package needs external bits, but that is why it is in rpmfusion, so ok.

6. There are a couple of binary libraries in the source package, like
libs/seal/lib/Win32/audw32vc_s.lib and libs/libpng/lib/libpng.lib for example. 
As far as I can tell they are not used, but to make sure they should be removed
in %prep according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries

7. I think it would be a good idea to have a comment in the spec file
explaining that the REASON you only want to build on i686 is that the package
contains assembly code.

8. You use %buildroot as an RPM macro but $RPM_OPT_FLAGS as a shell variable. 
The packaging guidelines prefers if you choose one or the other.

9. If you want Swedish translations of summary and descriptions, you can use
these: :-)

Summary(sv): Emulator av olika maskiner för MS-DOS, MS-Windows och GNU/Linux

%description -l sv
MEKA är en emulator av flera maskiner, ursprungligen startad som en emulator
av  Sega Master System, och generellt mycket inriktat mot Z80-baserade Sega
8-bitarssystem.  MEKA emulerar officiellt följande system:

 - Sega Game 1000        / SG-1000  / Japan, Oceanien
 - Sega Computer 3000    / SC-3000  / Japan, Oceanien, Europa
 - Super Control Station / SF-7000  / Japan, Oceanien, Europa
 - Sega Mark III         / MK3      / Japan
    + FM Unit Extension  / MK3+FM   / Japan
 - Sega Master System    / SMS      / Hela världen
 - Sega Game Gear        / GG       / Hela Världen
 - ColecoVision          / COLECO   / Amerika, Europa
 - Othello Multivision   / OMV      / Japan

Du kan spela andra system bara om du är smart nog att lista ut hur.  Och om du
är det betvivlar jag att du kommer vilja spela Nintendospel.  Så glöm det.

10. The start script does a "cd" to begin with, does some setup, and then
executes the real binary with the same arguments.  The first argument is the
ROM image.  But if this was given with a relative path, that path will no
longer be valid.  Maybe you could check if $1 begins with a slash, and if not,
prepend $PWD?

11. There is some kind of character encoding issue that maybe should be
reported upstreams.  My home directory is "/home/göran", UTF-8 encoded.  When
starting, meka doesn't find meka.dat.  Strace:ing I found it is trying to open
it under the wrong path:

write(1, "Loading MEKA.DAT (resources)...", 31) = 31
open("/home/g\303\203\302\266ran/.meka//meka.dat", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No
such file or directory)
chdir("/home/g\303\266ran/.meka")             = 0
write(1, "Failed!\n", 8)                = 8
chdir("/home/g\303\266ran/.meka")             = 0

\303\266 is the UTF-8 encoding of "ö".  \303\203\302\266 is the UTF-8 encoding
of "ö", which also is what you see if you display an UTF-8 "ö" in a Latin-1
locale.  So it appears the game tries to to convert the path from Latin-1 to
UTF-8, although it already is in UTF-8 from the start.

Only the meka.dat file had this problem.  The other meka.* files were correctly
found.

I suppose this isn't really a packaging issue, but a bug in the program, so we
could handle this in a separate bugzilla when the packaging is ready.  Most
people does have ASCII home directories anyway.

Finally, with a strategical soft link in /home I could work around this, and
managed to run some game called "H.E.R.O.".  So I've checked the program works.
 As far as I could tell, at least.  I've never been very good in these games.
:-)


-- 
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.