[Bug 460727] Review Request: gnujump - A jumping game which is a clone of xjump

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460727


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-09 18:42:01 EDT ---
Seems to run OK for me (F11, x86_64, binary nvidia drivers).  I'll go ahead and
review this package; hopefully we can get this ticket closed out before its
first anniversary.

This builds OK and rpmlint is silent.

The license seems to be to be GPLv3+, not GPLv2+; most of the source files
carry the usual GPLv3+ notice.  SDL_rotozoom.c just says "LGPL" and SFont.c
says GPLv2+, but both of those convert to GPLv3+ when linked to the rest of the
code.

Nothing seems to own /usr/share/gnujump.  You have "%{_datadir}/%{name}/*" in
the %files list, but you should just have "%{_datadir}/%{name}/" so that the
directory is owned properly instead of just whatever is inside it.

You should not pass --vendor="fedora" to desktop-file-install. 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:            
   3bfaac66b1429e8879e16bd7e9074ff1d6e3835a2ef1927af7d084deb186cf9d
   gnujump-1.0.6.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   gnujump = 1.0.6-1.fc12
   gnujump(x86-64) = 1.0.6-1.fc12
  =
   libGL.so.1()(64bit)
   libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libSDL_image-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit)

X doesn't own all of the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
X desktop file installed with --vendor.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.