Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Gregor Tätzner <gregor(a)freenet.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |gregor(a)freenet.de AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |gregor(a)freenet.de Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Gregor Tätzner <gregor(a)freenet.de&gt; 2012-03-27 12:57:53 EDT --- I'm going to take this review and help you out. If you package gets approved rdieter will sponsor you (I can't do that). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #3 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-27 20:08:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Awesome, thanks! (In reply to comment #2) Ah, that's what I was missing, I knew I forgot something As in the line that says: sed -i 's/\r//' license.txt readme.txt In the install section? seems a little odd, shouldn't this be in the prep because its the equivalent of a patch? Good point, I should ask upstream to include this. Haha yeah I'm planning to; I need to make one for a package I have in RPMFusion, so I will when I have some time to figure out how to make them. Good point, this is another thing I can send upstream. Although knowing the current development, it probably won't be incorporated until 0.8 comes out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #5 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-27 21:49:20 EDT --- Alright, I added the missing deps and tested in mock; it builds just fine. Here's the new files: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/love.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/love-0.7.2-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-28 22:02:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Yep, I included the bug reports right into the new spec :) Done! Here's the new files and I also made a man page, which I sent upstream (issue 405, see spec): SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/love.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/love-0.7.2-3.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Martin <martin(a)airs.me.uk&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin(a)airs.me.uk --- Comment #9 from Martin <martin(a)airs.me.uk&gt; 2012-03-29 12:45:27 EDT --- I have tried to rpmbuild --rebuild love-0.7.2-3.fc16.src.rpm on F16 x86_64 and it fails with... checking for library containing glLoadIdentity... no configure: error: Can't LÖVE without OpenGL I have installed mesa-libGL-devel and a ton of other -devel files in hopes of finding one that satisfies this. which one am I missing?? Martin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #11 from Martin <martin(a)airs.me.uk&gt; 2012-03-29 12:56:21 EDT --- Getting requirements for ./love.spec --> Already installed : DevIL-devel-1.7.8-6.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : libtiff-devel-3.9.5-1.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : freetype-devel-2.4.6-4.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : lua-devel-5.1.4-9.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : physfs-devel-1.0.2-3.fc15.x86_64 --> Already installed : SDL-devel-1.2.14-13.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : openal-soft-devel-1.12.854-2.fc15.x86_64 --> Already installed : 2:libogg-devel-1.2.2-3.fc15.x86_64 --> Already installed : 1:libvorbis-devel-1.3.3-1.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : flac-devel-1.2.1-6.fc12.x86_64 --> Already installed : 1:libmodplug-devel-0.8.8.4-1.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : libmng-devel-1.0.10-5.fc15.x86_64 --> Already installed : desktop-file-utils-0.18-4.fc16.x86_64 --> Already installed : libtool-2.4-9.fc16.x86_64 No uninstalled build requires seems ok?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-29 13:25:53 EDT --- Don't set the cvs flag until the review is approved, thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2012-03-29 13:40:34 EDT --- re: comment #12 oops, meant to reset the fedora-review flag, and botched it. sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #16 from Martin Airs <martin(a)airs.me.uk&gt; 2012-03-29 18:45:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) Indeed I am, there's someone else trying to run mari0 too on the games mailing list. Thanks Martin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Gregor Tätzner <gregor(a)freenet.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Gregor Tätzner <gregor(a)freenet.de&gt; 2012-03-30 13:52:49 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/greg/projects/Review/802050/love-0.7.2-linux-src.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : c3e678606bb9a870c31168e85b269e7e MD5SUM upstream package : c3e678606bb9a870c31168e85b269e7e [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins: well done minor issue: - before you check in please pass %{?_smp_mflags} to the make command i.e. make %{?_smp_mflags} don't remove it...we want a fast build, don't we? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |gregor(a)freenet.de --- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2012-03-30 14:12:09 EDT --- Jeremy, if you could share your Fedora Account System (FAS) username, I can get you sponsored into the packager group -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #22 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-30 17:23:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) I'll get the unstable up and going as soon as I can; I made a wiki page to post information on love in regards to Fedora. Please check up on it in a few days to grab the unstable build: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L%C3%96VE/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #24 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2012-03-30 23:33:05 EDT --- sponsored, next step is for you to request SCM access: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Sour... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-04-03 21:27:23 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: love Short Description: A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua Owners: mystro256 Branches: F15 F16 F17 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #27 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-04-03 23:23:39 EDT --- It seems version 0.8.0 was tagged yesterday, so I'm going to import 0.8.0 as soon as I confirm this is a new sample release and not a mistake. Though at the moment, it seems like I won't need to make an unstable after all. Anyway, for Martin Airs and anyone who is interested in rebuilding in the mean time, here's the Updated SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/love-0.8.0-1.fc16.src.rpm (In reply to comment #26) Thanks :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-04-04 00:08:46 EDT --- love-0.8.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/love-0.8.0-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #30 from Martin Airs <martin(a)airs.me.uk&gt; 2012-04-04 13:06:55 EDT --- Thanks Jeremy, love-0.8.0 installed and mari0 running sweet. Martin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-04-04 15:52:04 EDT --- love-0.8.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/love-0.8.0-2.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-04-04 15:54:50 EDT --- love-0.8.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/love-0.8.0-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |love-0.8.0-2.fc17 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-04-11 23:05:55 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-04-11 23:05:55 EDT --- love-0.8.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|love-0.8.0-2.fc15 |love-0.8.0-2.fc16 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-04-14 19:22:04 EDT --- love-0.8.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.