Taken :)

*UPDATE*

Koji Builds:

  Frh:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9359867

Looks fine, approved!

Package Review
==============
 
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
 
 
Issues:
=======
- 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 is included in %doc.
  Note: Cannot find license.txt in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
 
====>> False positive, package uses %license which is fine
 
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
  or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2652160 bytes in 30 files.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
 
=====> False positive imho, packaging is fine
 
 
===== MUST items =====
 
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
 
====> Is ok according to link in spec
 
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
     file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
 
===== SHOULD items =====
 
Generic:
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dreamweb-
     doc , dreamweb-us , dreamweb-uk , dreamweb-fr , dreamweb-de , dreamweb-it
     , dreamweb-es
 
====> Everything ok
 
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
 
====> is noarch
 
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
 
===== EXTRA items =====
 
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dreamweb-common-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-doc-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-us-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-uk-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-fr-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-de-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-it-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-es-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          dreamweb-1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

***** rpmlint output in attachment, very huge *****

====> All warnings are false positive, the dangling symlinks are resolved by dependency to dreamweb-common in spec
 
 
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
 
 
Requires
--------
dreamweb-es (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dreamweb-common
 
dreamweb-it (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dreamweb-common
 
dreamweb-fr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dreamweb-common
 
dreamweb-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dreamweb
    filesystem
    scummvm
 
dreamweb-uk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dreamweb-common
 
dreamweb-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
 
dreamweb-de (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dreamweb-common
 
dreamweb-us (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dreamweb-common
 
 
 
Provides
--------
dreamweb-es:
    application()
    application(dreamweb-es.desktop)
    dreamweb
    dreamweb-es
 
dreamweb-it:
    application()
    application(dreamweb-it.desktop)
    dreamweb
    dreamweb-it
 
dreamweb-fr:
    application()
    application(dreamweb-fr.desktop)
    dreamweb
    dreamweb-fr
 
dreamweb-common:
    dreamweb-common
 
dreamweb-uk:
    application()
    application(dreamweb-uk.desktop)
    dreamweb
    dreamweb-uk
 
dreamweb-doc:
    dreamweb-doc
 
dreamweb-de:
    application()
    application(dreamweb-de.desktop)
    dreamweb
    dreamweb-de
 
dreamweb-us:
    application()
    application(dreamweb-us.desktop)
    dreamweb
    dreamweb-us
 
 
 
Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-es-1.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1f10045952d2348d2775c05c0b95ff4f35c60d6e9be109893157ef63d4444803
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f10045952d2348d2775c05c0b95ff4f35c60d6e9be109893157ef63d4444803
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-uk-1.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4a6f13911ce67d62c526e41048ec067b279f1b378c9210f39e0ce8d3f2b80142
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a6f13911ce67d62c526e41048ec067b279f1b378c9210f39e0ce8d3f2b80142
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-fr-1.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 76fff0ba67f5bcf2dde9c3fb3f5d3d5c017bb0e7368d98d9deee83d1b4182d54
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 76fff0ba67f5bcf2dde9c3fb3f5d3d5c017bb0e7368d98d9deee83d1b4182d54
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-de-1.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2d42fbf5dd3a58ea98ebb5c9bb33f3d5b70e92a936013248f67c33f1b82ac74b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d42fbf5dd3a58ea98ebb5c9bb33f3d5b70e92a936013248f67c33f1b82ac74b
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-it-1.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7363d5f6b5aa380862d185980f50e7ac7c661cccdc3f1132f525d92bf4c47f51
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7363d5f6b5aa380862d185980f50e7ac7c661cccdc3f1132f525d92bf4c47f51
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-manuals-en-highres.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6d26dbc9c032dfe00211065c31d738a2135aefdf561934722e1ca6e3416ff769
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6d26dbc9c032dfe00211065c31d738a2135aefdf561934722e1ca6e3416ff769
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-manuals-en-lores.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c1ec5b7374d3f67367ea670e0dd830f5d8cc8c0dbc508f2d093a14a47274212b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1ec5b7374d3f67367ea670e0dd830f5d8cc8c0dbc508f2d093a14a47274212b
http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-us-1.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f403d95e847b0fe2cde9b86cd2cf835826c6b759c3691f0ee456cacb0948dc94
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f403d95e847b0fe2cde9b86cd2cf835826c6b759c3691f0ee456cacb0948dc94
 
 
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1206901
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Created attachment 1008018 [details]
rpmlint output

Thanks fpr the quick review, Christian!

* * *

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dreamweb
Short Description: Click-and-point adventure with the look and feel of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner
Upstream URL: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dreamweb
Owners: besser82
Branches: el5 el6 epel7 f20 f21 f22
InitialCC:

Please update the License tag in the RPM.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Firmware, the correct value would be: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"

This applies because of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Shareware (the license allows DISTRIBUTION, not MODIFICATION).

Updated license-tag.

* * *

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dreamweb
Short Description: Click-and-point adventure with the look and feel of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner
Upstream URL: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dreamweb
Owners: besser82
Branches: el5 el6 epel7 f20 f21 f22
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

dreamweb-1.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamweb-1.1-1.el5

dreamweb-1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamweb-1.1-1.el6

dreamweb-1.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamweb-1.1-1.el7

dreamweb-1.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamweb-1.1-1.fc20

dreamweb-1.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamweb-1.1-1.fc21

dreamweb-1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dreamweb-1.1-1.fc22

dreamweb-1.1-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.

dreamweb-1.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

dreamweb-1.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

dreamweb-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.