[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|2 |4 --- Comment #8 from Ben Rosser --- Great, thanks! (I'll set the ticket to block RF_ACCEPT, as is usually done for RPM Fusion package reviews.). Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2 [Bug 2] Tracker: New packages awaiting review https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4 [Bug 4] Tracker: Accepted packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package is approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2.1) LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or
generated". 583 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/dwarftherapist/review-
dwarftherapist/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
dwarftherapist-data
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 --- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser --- Spec URL: https://mars.arosser.com/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarftherapist.spec SRPM URL: https://mars.arosser.com/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarftherapist-39.2.1-1.fc27.src.rpm - Update to new upstream release. - Split out /usr/share/dwarftherapist into noarch data subpackage. - Make setcap a Requires(post), rather than just Requires. - Add requires on hicolor-icon-theme. I didn't put the icons in dwarftherapist-data, though I suppose I could. It seemed weird for the desktop file to not be in the main package though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |zebo...@gmail.com |mfusion.org | Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Use Requires(post) for this: # Required for post step. Requires(post): /usr/sbin/setcap - [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128 In order to own these directories correctly, add: Requires: hicolor-icon-theme - There's a lot of data in /usr/share, please consider making a noarch data subpackages for it in order to reduce arched packages sizes to a minimum. [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1781760 bytes in /usr/share -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added namespace||nonfree --- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser --- For a while it looked like Dwarf Therapist was dead upstream. However a new group of developers have taken over and updated things for the new version(s) of Dwarf Fortress. They've also improved the compilation process (switching to cmake from qmake), making the spec simpler. Thus I've finally updated the package: Spec URL: https://mars.arosser.com/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarftherapist.spec SRPM URL: https://mars.arosser.com/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarftherapist-39.2.0-1.fc27.src.rpm Note that the compiled documentation (built using tex) has been moved to a separate git repository: https://github.com/Dwarf-Therapist/Manual. I'm not entirely sure what I should do here; include it in this SRPM as a subpackage or have a separate source package just for the manual? It may be worth noting that last I checked, the manual didn't build on EPEL 7 due to an unavailable tex package. For now I've dropped it entirely from the spec. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 Bug 4059 depends on bug 3953, which changed state. Bug 3953 Summary: Review request: dwarffortress - A single-player procedurally generated fantasy game https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 --- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser 2016-08-18 04:47:34 CEST --- I've added the memory layouts for DF versions 0.43.02 and 0.43.03 to the package (they are sourced from upstream, there just hasn't been a release they were added-- they are .ini files that get dropped into a directory), thus allowing DT to work with those DF versions. Unfortunately there's still no support for the latest releases yet (due to the 64-bit changes and compiler upgrades). I also got the package to build on EPEL7. Sadly this required disabling building of the documentation, as a single tex class was not available in EL7. Thus I added several blocks to the spec to prevent generation of documentation for EPEL. Spec URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarftherapist.spec SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/24/SRPMs/dwarftherapist-37.0.0-4.fc24.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.
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 --- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser 2016-06-17 21:12:45 CEST --- Fixed, thanks (and sorry for the delay), and re-uploaded as 37.0.0-3. Spec URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarftherapist.spec SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/23/SRPMs/dwarftherapist-37.0.0-3.fc23.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.
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 --- Comment #1 from Kevin Kofler 2016-05-30 23:55:56 CEST --- > The architecture dependency is needed because, at the moment, > DF is only built for 32-bit systems, although that may be > changing in the near future You shouldn't need to specify the ISA explicitly in that case. The depsolvers should be automatically picking up the 32-bit build if it is available in the 64-bit repository and if no native 64-bit build is available. (If that is not working, it is a bug in the depsolver.) -- 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.
[Bug 4059] Review request: dwarftherapist - Management tool designed to run side-by-side with Dwarf Fortress
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2 Depends on||3953 -- 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.
