https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 Artur Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1364745 (FE-GAMESIG) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364745 [Bug 1364745] Games SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 --- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Added an appdata.xml file and switched to using fc-match for finding system fonts, instead of relying on hard-coded paths. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-3/gearhead1.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-3/gearhead1-1.310-3.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44502319 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 Pavel Zhukov <pzhukov(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pzhukov(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 aegorenk(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(fedora(a)svgames.pl | |) --- Comment #4 from aegorenk(a)redhat.com --- Issues: ======= - GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) only should use "LGPLv2" as a short name - mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 148, tab: line 159) - $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/gearhead1-data-1.310-3.fc31.noarch.rpm ... gearhead1-data.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding ... ... multiple files with wrong file end of line incoding - $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/gearhead1-data-1.310-3.fc31.noarch.rpm ... gearhead1-data.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gearhead1-data/license.txt ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 752 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/eam/tmp/gearhead1/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. [x]: 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 122880 bytes in 18 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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 gearhead1-textmode , gearhead1-SDL , gearhead1-data , gearhead1-data- gfx [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn gearhead1-1.310-3.fc32.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, PHP, Perl, Java, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 aegorenk(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(fedora(a)svgames.pl | |) --- Comment #6 from aegorenk(a)redhat.com --- I'm sorry for not pointing it in the initial review comment. There is one more problem pointed by rpmlint. - $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/gearhead1-textmode-1.310-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm ... gearhead1-textmode.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/libexec/gearhead1/gearhead1-textmode ... https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-stat... Also there are more mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warnings. - $ rpmlint SRPMS/gearhead1-1.310-4.fc31.src.rpm ... gearhead1.src:153: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 153, tab: line 153) ... after fixing this "spaces and tabs" warning please run rpmlint again, I saw that there is more places like that -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 aegorenk(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from aegorenk(a)redhat.com --- I see that the build process is pretty straight forward. I checked FPC man and tried different options, but the result is the same. I think it should be escalated to FPC. This shouldn't be a problem. Looks good to me. Approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823132 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-05-28 01:59:58 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component