[Bug 524283] Review Request: plee-the-bear - 2D platform game

Sun Nov 15 15:51:01 UTC 2009

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=524283

Simon Wesp <cassmodiah at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp <cassmodiah at fedoraproject.org>  2009-11-15 10:50:59 EDT ---
FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-12-ppc/result/*
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_communication.so
libbear_communication.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_debug.so libbear_debug.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_generic_items.so
libbear_generic_items.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libplee_the_bear.so
libplee_the_bear.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_input.so libbear_input.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_engine.so
libbear_engine.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear-editor.so
libbear-editor.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_visual.so
libbear_visual.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_gui.so libbear_gui.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_time.so libbear_time.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_audio.so libbear_audio.so
plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_universe.so
libbear_universe.so
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 0 warnings.

OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines

OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name}

OK - MUST: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines

OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: 

FIX - MUST: License field in spec file doesn't matches the actual license:
License:        GPLv2+ and CC-BY-SA

OK - MUST: License files included in %doc

OK - MUST: Spec is in American English

OK - MUST: Spec is legible

OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5
5bb295d36aa92aa7c84e3fceda73e47b

OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on ppc

N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.

OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.

OK - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang

OK - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review.

OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates

OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing

OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)

OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.

OK - MUST: Consistently uses macros

OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content

N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage

OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application

N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package

N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package

N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.

N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
Doesn't make sense for this package

N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency

OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.

N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.

OK - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.

OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.

OK - MUST: All filenames valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.

N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock.

OK - SHOULD: Compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.

N/A - SHOULD: Functions as described.

FIX - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
update icon cache scriplet is missing
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache

N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.

N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg

N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.

Other items:
OK - latest stable version

OK - SourceURL valid

OK - Compiler flags ok

OK - Debuginfo complete

FIX - Timestamps
INSTALL="install -p"
SOURCE0 original = 03 Sep 2009 02:32:34 CEST
SOURCE0 package = 16 Sep 2009 00:01 CEST

-- 
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.