--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande <trpost(a)katamail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Note: Cannot find license.html in rpm(s)
That could be a bug in fedora-review, because the file _is_ included, and
the package also includes a COPYING as %doc.
fedora-review is not 100% safe. It certainly doesn't know all of the
packaging guidelines to tell whether a package meets them or not. I wouldn't
trust it too much, but suggest using it only to see where it complains and
then double-check those items.
> [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>
> You can use: %{name} is a computer program to play the board game Blokus
If fedora-review flagged that as '[!]', that's strange. The guidelines say:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
Guidelines#Source_RPM_Buildtime_Macros
But this package doesn't use any macros in %summary or %description, so I
don't understand what should be wrong here.
Btw, on the web page the game is named "Pentobi" with an upper-case first
character. The package is named "pentobi", because more often than not we
write everything in lower-case. If %name were used here, the %description
would start the sentence with a lower-case character, which would look
unusual.
The Naming Guidelines _try_ to explain when it may make sense to use a
specific case in the package name,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity
but I think there are only very few examples where developers have tried to
influence the naming of RPM packages actually.
Conclusively, "Name: pentobi" is fine, and not using %{name} in the summary
or description is fine, too.
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
This isn't trivial to check. And it's hard to tell how many
packagers/reviewers examine it at all. For this package, it would be
sufficient to check whether it wants to display the manual (not in a docdir,
however) or the three %doc files via its "Help" menu. => It doesn't seem
to
do that.
> BuildRequires and Requires entries should be listed one-by-one.
Packager is free to disagree, however. ;-)
> [-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Remains to be examined. Are the unit tests suitable for %check section?
[...]
A few findings:
> Requires: boost,qt
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
> %{_prefix}/games/pentobi
> %dir %{_datadir}/games/%{name}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/Packaging
| Data files (maps, pixmaps, sounds) go in %{_datadir}/%{name} ,
| not %{_datadir}/games/%{name} . Binaries go in %{_bindir} and
| not /usr/games. According to the FHS, the use of /usr/share/games
| and /usr/games is optional, and we recommend not using either for
| consistency, so that games are packaged like all other applications.
Hi Michael. Thank you for your helping me.
Really I noted these points but I'm confuse, because by compiling this software
manually, its binaries are located precisely in those paths.
> %{_datadir}/mime/packages/pentobi-mime.xml
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/pentobi.png
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
> %{_datadir}/thumbnailers/pentobi.thumbnailer
$ rpm -qf /usr/share/thumbnailers
file /usr/share/thumbnailers is not owned by any package
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
$ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/thumbnailers
thunar-vfs-0:1.2.0-7.fc18.x86_64
thunar-vfs-0:1.2.0-7.fc18.i686
ffmpegthumbnailer-0:2.0.8-2.fc18.x86_64
whaawmp-0:0.2.14-4.fc18.noarch
mmh... I have not seen a lot things.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug