Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mmapper - Graphical MUME mapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516336
Summary: Review Request: mmapper - Graphical MUME mapper Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kalev@smartlink.ee QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/mmapper.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/mmapper-2.0.4-1.final2.fc12.src.rpm Description: MMapper is a graphical mapper for a MUD named MUME (Multi-Users in Middle Earth). The game is traditionally played in a text-only mode, but MMapper tries to represent the virtual world in user-friendly graphical environment. It acts as a proxy between a telnet client and a MUD server, being able to analyze game data in real time and show player's position in a map.
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=516336
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |mmapper
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=516336
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl 2009-08-09 06:54:48 EDT --- Taking for review
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1592755
$ rpmlint mmapper.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/mmapper-2.0.4-1.final2.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/mmapper-2.0.4-1.final2.fc12.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ md5sum ~/Downloads/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz ba690157374e51bf11291accb5de3b0e /home/erik/Downloads/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz $ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz ba690157374e51bf11291accb5de3b0e /home/erik/rpmbuild/SOURCES/mmapper-2.0.4-final2-source.tar.gz
+ OK ! Needs to be looked into / Not applicable
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [!] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [/] 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. [/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [/] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [/] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [/] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [/] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [/] 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.
The license of this package is questionable. It contains a mix of GPLv2, GPLv2+ and (LGPLv2 with exceptions or GPLv3 with exceptions). If I understand the licenses correctly, the resulting license of this application is GPLv2. Could someone from FE-LEGAL confirm this?
Other then the license, this package is good to go in Fedora
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=516336
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-08-11 10:48:00 EDT --- Well, since there is GPLv2 only in the mix, it is the only viable option for the combination of files.
As is, License: GPLv2 is correct.
I would strongly recommend that you ask upstream to move the GPLv2 only code to GPLv2 or later, as it would provide more licensing flexibility for future use.
Lifting FE-Legal.
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=516336
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2009-08-11 11:44:45 EDT --- spot, thank you for helping us out with the license question. I have already contacted upstream and requested that the GPLv2 only code be relicensed.
* Tue Aug 11 2009 Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee - 2.0.4-2.final2 - Changed license tag to read "GPLv2" as there is GPLv2-only code in the mix.
Spec URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/mmapper.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc12.src.rpm
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=516336
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl 2009-08-11 12:24:49 EDT --- Thanks for the confirmation spot.
============================================= The package mmapper is APPROVED by epienbro =============================================
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=516336
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2009-08-11 12:44:39 EDT --- Thank you for the review, Erik.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mmapper Short Description: Graphical MUME mapper Owners: kalev Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
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=516336
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
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=516336
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-08-12 20:01:15 EDT --- cvs done.
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=516336
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-13 04:41:15 EDT --- mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc10
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=516336
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-13 04:41:20 EDT --- mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc11
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=516336
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-15 04:12:04 EDT --- mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update mmapper'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8546
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=516336
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-15 04:22:49 EDT --- mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update mmapper'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8607
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=516336
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-17 17:57:51 EDT --- mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=516336
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |2.0.4-2.final2.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA
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=516336
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-17 18:01:10 EDT --- mmapper-2.0.4-2.final2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=516336
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|2.0.4-2.final2.fc11 |2.0.4-2.final2.fc10
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=516336
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2011-01-16 16:38:51 EST --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mmapper New Branches: el6 Owners: kalev
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=516336
--- Comment #14 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-01-18 01:46:12 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org