[Bug 502065] Review Request: slashem - Super Lotsa Added Stuff Hack - Extended Magic

[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=502065





--- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-06-09 16:23:54 EDT ---
rpmlint output:

slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/record
slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/slashem 0775
slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/games/slashem/slashem 02755
slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/perm
slashem.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/games/slashem/logfile
slashem.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/slashem/save 0775
slashem.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post ln
slashem.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings.

The zero-length files are okay, because they will become nonzero as people play
the game, and they are all marked %config(noreplace).  The nonstandard dir
permissions are copied from nethack, so they're fine.  But the dangerous
commands need to be dealt with.  Looking through the scriptlets, it appears you
need to add these to the spec file:

Requires(post): coreutils, mkfontdir
Requires(preun): coreutils

Is mkfontdir really a BuildRequires?  I only see it invoked in %post.

MUST items:
OK: package naming guidelines
OK: spec file name
X: packaging guidelines -- see the section on scriptlets.  I believe that the
body of your %post script should be wrapped in this:

if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then
  ...
fi

and the body of your %preun script should be wrapped in this:

if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then
  ...
fi

OK: licensing guidelines
OK: license text matches actual license
OK: license file included in %doc
OK: spec file in American English
OK: spec file legible
OK: source file matches upstream
OK: builds on at least one primary arch (x86_64)
NA: appropriate use of ExcludeArch
OK: all dependencies listed in BuildRequires
NA: proper handling of locales
NA: library installation => invoke ldconfig
NA: relocatable package
OK: package owns all directories it creates
OK: no duplicate file listings
OK: proper file permissions
OK: %clean section
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: code or permissible content
NA: large documentation in -doc
OK: no runtime dependencies in %doc
NA: header files in -devel
NA: static libraries in -static
NA: pkgconfig file => Requires: pkgconfig
NA: .so files in -devel
NA: -devel requires main package
OK: no libtool archives
OK: desktop file.  However, not this sentence from the Packaging guidelines:

For new packages, do not apply a vendor tag to desktop files. Existing packages
that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the life of the package. This
is mostly for the sake of menu-editing (which bases off of .desktop file/path
names).

OK: do not own files/dirs already owned by other packages
OK: remove buildroot first in %install
OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD items:
NA: ask upstream to include a license file
NA: description and summary translations
OK: package builds in mock (only checked fedora-rawhide-x86_64)
--: package builds on all supported arches (unable to check)
OK: package functions as described (only minimal testing ... just wait until
later!)
OK: sane scriptlets
NA: subpackages require main package
NA: placement of pkgconfig files
NA: file dependencies

-- 
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.