[Bug 191582] Review Request: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582





------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com  2006-05-21 19:32 EST -------
* rpmlint output clean
* Package meets Package Naming Guidelines
* Spec filename matches base package %{name}
* Package meets Packaging Guidelines
* Package licensed with open source compatible license
* License in spec matches actual license
* License text included in %doc
* Spec file written in American English
* Spec file is legible
* Sources match upstream
9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510  xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz
9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510  xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz
* Package successfully compiles and builds on FC5 x86_64

O Package has all BR except libXxf86vm-devel which I needed to add for it to compile

* Package does not have any locales
* Package does not contain any shared library files
* Package is not relocatable
* Package owns all directories it creates
* Package does not contain any duplicate files in %files
* File permissions are set properly
* Package contains proper %clean section
* Macro usage consistant enough
- I notice you use %{__sed}, but don't bother using %{__make} or %{__rm} etc..
* Package contains permissble content
* Package does not contain large documentation to warrent a seperate package
* Package does not contain header files, libraries or .pc files
* Package does not contain any .so files
* Package does not require or use a -devel package
* Package does not contain any .la files
* Package adds an appropriate .desktop entry
* Package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages


*** MUST ***

- You MUST figure out why FC5 needs to add a BuildRequires of libXxf86vm-devel
and why this is not needed for your build (presumably FC6)


Non-blocking SHOULDs:

- Be more consistant with macro usage, for example %{__sed}, but no %{__rm} etc.
- I also prefer %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but that is a matter of
preference.  I just think spec files look cleaner when everything consistantly
uses %{} format.  So basically I'm saying you should use a clean more legible
consistant style in your spec files, but I'm not going to say this is a blocker
or should be fixed, just a suggestion.
- Let me know that the name xgalaga isn't going to be a problem with Namco. 
I've heard the Lgames are not allowed because the names are too close to the
original, is this going to be a problem?
- Return the favor by reviewing some of my packages ;-)


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.