Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 180255

Summary: Review Request: nazghul - Old school RPG engine
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jason Tibbitts <j>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Michael Fleming <mfleming+rpm>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-02-14 19:29:21 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779    

Description Jason Tibbitts 2006-02-06 20:07:53 UTC
Spec Name or Url:
SRPM Name or Url:
Nazghul is an old-school RPG engine modeled after those made in the
heyday of top-down, 2d tile-based graphics. It is specifically modeled
after Ultima V.

Note that this SRPM builds two packages: nazghul, the game engine and nazghul-haxima, the supplied game, which is just plain text scheme code along with some images.

rpmlint output:

W: nazghul-haxima no-documentation

Comment 1 Michael Fleming 2006-02-07 11:08:15 UTC
Builds fine in mock (FC4) and plays well for this old Ultima geek (10yrs+ member :-)).

- rpmlint is mostly happy aside the lack of doco in the haxima subpackage
- nazgul-haxima should be noarch
- rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/ - > rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT....
- Rather than use chmod during %install use %attr in %files (my preference)
- install -Dp instead of mkdir/install -p for the haxima icon?
- %exclude %{_datadir}/nazghul/haxima in base package - why?
- list fedora-haxima.desktop & haxima.png in %files rather than using a wildcard
as you probably don't want to own all desktop and pixmap files

I'll take this bug for a fuller review a little later (once my bz group
membership is sorted)

Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2006-02-07 15:14:10 UTC
Point-by-point comnments:

Note that is is not possible to build both noarch and arch-dependent packages
from the same specfile, so nazghul-haxima cannot be noarch.  If they packaged it
separately then I could just build it as a separate package.

I was wanting the rm to fail if isn't installed so the package won't
build, but it's immaterial.   It's actually an upstream bug that the provided
script isn't correct, so I think I'll just patch the upstream bug and let this
go away.  This steps around the chmod/%attr issue as well.

Never used install -D; I'll switch.

The main package owns %{_datadir}/nazghul, but the subpackage owns the
subdirectory.  (This is in perhaps optimistic preparation for more games using
the engine; packages should not own the same directory if possible.)  I'll use
%dir and skip the exclude.

True; if there are ever other games in the base package I will have to list them
separately so I might as well do it now.

Updated spec and src.rpm are in

Comment 3 Michael Fleming 2006-02-13 12:14:54 UTC
Point noted regarding the subpackage architecture (RFE?)

I've downloaded the newer SRPM and am putting it through it's paces now. I'll
let you know how it goes

Comment 4 Michael Fleming 2006-02-13 13:33:02 UTC
Review for release 2:
* RPM name is OK
* Source nazghul-0.5.3.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of nazghul looks OK
* File list of nazghul looks OK
* File list of nazghul-haxima looks OK
* Runs perfectly well on Core 4 with current updates

Needs work (but not a blocker IMHO):

W: nazghul-haxima no-documentation

* Something in %doc for the haxima subpackage to keep rpmlint happy? 
  I'm old enough to remember the old Ultimas, the young 'uns might not be so
  fortunate - RFE upstream for some backstory? :-P

But I digress...


Comment 5 Jason Tibbitts 2006-02-13 16:02:52 UTC
It seems there are 64bit issues which prevent the package from building on
x86_64.  Catsting void* to int, it looks like.  I didn't think people did that
any longer.

I'm going to hack around a bit before declaring this ExclusiveArch: i386.

Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2006-02-14 19:29:21 UTC
OK, after a bit of hacking I have a clean build on all three architectures.  I
also packaged some additional documentation including adding a users' guide to
the haxima subpackage.