[Bug 3863] Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3863

--- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at gmail.com> 2015-12-29 13:05:02 CET ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> >1) You mix Recommends and Suggests, according to:
> >
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/WeakDependencies
> >
> >Suggests are pretty much ignored under Fedora atm. So you may want to change
> >most Suggests into Recommends, at least for those Suggests which are available
> >as Fedora packages in the standard Fedora repos.
> 
> The suggests vs recommends were carefully picked.
> 
> Suggests does the same thing on Debian (ie: about nothing but preventing
> auto-removals and show this info in management UI's & packages website).
> 
> Some uncommon extractor is only needed for the Japanese demo of one game out of
> 200 for example.
> 
> 'unzip' is only needed to patch Wolf3D 1.0 to Wolf3D 1.2 for example;
> the newer zip archives are processed with native Python modules.
> 
> The tool has extensive runtime checking for missing tools and will
> print out appropriate command needed to install missing tools.
> 
> See at the end of build.py:
> 
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/game-data-packager.git/tree/game_data_packager/build.py#n2678
> 
> 
> In the future we'd need to add suggests for 'steam', 'steamcmd'
> & 'xdelta' and maybe even more.
> 
> ----
> 
> steamcmd is a pain to make working, so you may want to copy this script:
> 
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/steamcmd.git/tree/debian/scripts/steamcmd
> 
> 
> > 3) The "%clean" section is obsolete, and also it is not intended to do a "make
> > clean" but to remove the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT aka the "make install" DESTDIR.
> Ok
> 
> > 2) The %install section is quite long, you say that you've added a "make
> > install" target upstream, it would be good to use this in the next version
> >
> > 4) I see no license files in the %files sections. 
> 
> Both of those will be fixed in the proper v44 release tarball;
> the first cross-distro release. ... but I'm not responsible
> for publishing the releases.
> 
> I can ask to release now if that doesn't conflict against other
> project goals; like the half-done inclusion of Unreal & UT support
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00372.html .
> 
> Or if you prefer we can publish a git snapshot right away;
> name it v44~rc1 or something.
> (I'd prefer, but I don't know what that involves)

I think that going with a git snapshot for now would be good.

(In reply to comment #5)
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
> 
> According to this pre-release could be:
> 
> game-data-packager-44-0.1
> 
> (there's no "%{alphatag}" here)

Right, so assuming you go with a git snapshot du-jour without giving it a tag
like "rc1" the new srpm would version would be:
game-data-packager-44-0.1.git$(DATA)$(HASH)

See e.g.:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/xorg-x11-drv-ati.git/tree/xorg-x11-drv-ati.spec

For how to handle this, note that spec file supports both git snapshots and
release tarbals, you can simplify things by only supporting git snapshots for
now, and simply switching to tarbals once a tarbal with all the necessary bits
is available, or if you expect to have a use for git snapshots in the future
too you can use the same approach.

-- 
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.