[Bug 2161] Review request: pcsxr - A plugin based PlayStation (PSX) emulator with high compatibility

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161

--- Comment #22 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt at hotmail.com> 2012-02-19 06:52:28 CET ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> rpmlint:
> pcsxr.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: pcsxr-73976.zip
> pcsxr.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/games/psemu/libDFXVideo.so
> pcsxr.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/games/psemu/libGXVideo.so
> pcsxr.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcsxr-1.9.92/COPYING
> pcsxr-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/pcsxr/plugins/gxvideo/draw.c
> [Repeated ~28 times]
> 
> [OK] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
> [OK] Spec file matches base package name.
> [E ] Spec has consistant macro usage.
> [OK] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
> [OK] License
> [OK] License field in spec matches
> [OK] License file included in package
> [OK] Spec in American English
> [OK] Spec is legible.
> [- ] Sources match upstream md5sum:
>         NA, svn gives different sums for different checkouts.
>         diff -r is OK.
> [OK] Package needs ExcludeArch
> [OK] BuildRequires correct
> [OK] Spec handles locales/find_lang
> [- ] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
> [OK] Package is code or permissible content.
> [- ] Doc subpackage needed/used.
> [OK ]Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
> 
> [OK] Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
> 
> [OK ]Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
> [OK ] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
> [OK] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
> [OK]Package owns all the directories it creates.
> [E ] No rpmlint output.
> - final provides and requires are sane:
>    
> ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/pcsxr-debuginfo-1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15.i686.rpm
>     pcsxr-debuginfo = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15
>     pcsxr-debuginfo(x86-32) = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15
>     =
> 
>     ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/pcsxr-1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15.i686.rpm
>     libBladeSio1.so
>     libDFCdrom.so
>     libDFInput.so
>     libDFNet.so
>     libDFSound.so
>     libDFXVideo.so
>     libGXVideo.so
>     libpeopsxgl.so
>     pcsxr = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15
>     pcsxr(x86-32) = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15
>     =
>     /bin/sh
>     libGL.so.1
>     libSDL-1.2.so.0
>     libX11.so.6
>     libXext.so.6
>     libXtst.so.6
>     libXv.so.1
>     libXxf86vm.so.1
>     libatk-1.0.so.0
>     libc.so.6
>     libcairo.so.2
>     libcdio.so.12
>     libcdio.so.12(CDIO_12)
>     libdl.so.2
>     libfontconfig.so.1
>     libfreetype.so.6
>     libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
>     libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
>     libgio-2.0.so.0
>     libglade-2.0.so.0
>     libglib-2.0.so.0
>     libgmodule-2.0.so.0
>     libgobject-2.0.so.0
> 
> SHOULD Items:
> 
> [OK] Should build in mock.
>       http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3790345 (f17)
> [-] Should build on all supported archs
>       Not tested
> [OK] Should function as described.
>        Starts, the menus are functional, but no more tests.
> [OK] Should have sane scriptlets.
> [- ] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
> [OK] Should have dist tag
> [OK] Should package latest version 
> 
> ISSUES
> 1 Rpmlint: The executable-stack warning is strange and requires at 
>   least an explanation. Emulator asm code?  Other output can be ignored.

I'm almost certain this is the case, but I will look into it to make sure.

> 2 If possible, the note about issues w OpenGL 64-bit support should have a 
>   link to bugtracker or so, in order to know when it's solved.

I've been looking for the report upstream but I'll be sure to include it.

> 3 The svn version is used in several places, better handled with a macro.

Good point, it would be useful indeed.

(In reply to comment #21)
> ISSUES (cont)
> 4 In the License: comments you refer to debian-upstream/copyright, which is not
> part of the package.

Yeah I guess I didn't think that through, to be honest it's straightforward
enough that I think it's fairly redundant to even have the reference in there.


On a side note, I got an email from a dev, the FSF issue should be fixed in the
latest svn, so I'll post a new package when I have some time.


(In reply to comment #20)
> Sorry for delay, too much work, too little time...
> 

Yeah I know what you mean; I've been horribly busy, so I haven't had time to
review any of you're packages yet. I'll be sure to review it this week though.

-- 
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.