Added a textmode build of the game and split the whole thing into several packages.

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-2/gearhead1.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-2/gearhead1-1.310-2.fc32.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43642023

Added an appdata.xml file and switched to using fc-match for finding system fonts, instead of relying on hard-coded paths.

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-3/gearhead1.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-3/gearhead1-1.310-3.fc32.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44502319

I'll review this.

Issues:
=======
- GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) only should use "LGPLv2" as a short name
- mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 148, tab: line 159)
- $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/gearhead1-data-1.310-3.fc31.noarch.rpm
  ...
  gearhead1-data.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding ...
  ...
  multiple files with wrong file end of line incoding
- $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/gearhead1-data-1.310-3.fc31.noarch.rpm
  ...
  gearhead1-data.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gearhead1-data/license.txt
  ...
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown
     or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 752 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/eam/tmp/gearhead1/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 18 files.
[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]: 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 %license.
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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
     gearhead1-textmode , gearhead1-SDL , gearhead1-data , gearhead1-data-
     gfx
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn gearhead1-1.310-3.fc32.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, PHP, Perl, Java, Ocaml, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

>gearhead1-data.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gearhead1-data/license.txt
Notified upstream: https://github.com/jwvhewitt/gearhead-1/issues/108

All the other issues fixed in the spec.
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-4/gearhead1.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/gearhead1-1.310-4/gearhead1-1.310-4.fc32.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44658018

I'm sorry for not pointing it in the initial review comment. There is one more problem pointed by rpmlint.

- $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/gearhead1-textmode-1.310-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
  ...
  gearhead1-textmode.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/libexec/gearhead1/gearhead1-textmode
  ...
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries


Also there are more mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warnings.

- $ rpmlint SRPMS/gearhead1-1.310-4.fc31.src.rpm
  ...
  gearhead1.src:153: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 153, tab: line 153)
  ...
  after fixing this "spaces and tabs" warning please run rpmlint again, I saw that there is more places like that

>gearhead1-textmode.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/libexec/gearhead1/gearhead1-textmode
A "Hello world" program build with FPC on Fedora 32 does not link to anything:
>$ echo "program helloworld; begin writeln('Hello, world.') end." > hello_world.pas && fpc hello_world.pas && ./hello_world && ldd ./hello_world
>Free Pascal Compiler version 3.2.0-beta [2020/05/04] for x86_64
>Copyright (c) 1993-2020 by Florian Klaempfl and others
>Target OS: Linux for x86-64
>Compiling hello_world.pas
>Linking hello_world
>1 lines compiled, 0.1 sec
>Hello, world.
>	not a dynamic executable
The textmode build of the game does not include any external libraries, so it doesn't link to anything more. As such, if anything, this would be a bug against FPC.

>gearhead1.src:153: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 153, tab: line 153)
I'm using tabs for indentation everywhere. Apparently rpmlint really doesn't like me using more than 1 space to separate command arguments in some places.

> The textmode build of the game does not include any external libraries, so
> it doesn't link to anything more. As such, if anything, this would be a bug
> against FPC.
I see that the build process is pretty straight forward. I checked FPC man and tried different options, but the result is the same. I think it should be escalated to FPC.
 
> I'm using tabs for indentation everywhere. Apparently rpmlint really doesn't
> like me using more than 1 space to separate command arguments in some places.

This shouldn't be a problem.

Looks good to me.
Approved.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gearhead1

FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079

FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df

FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-6b578c45df has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-08bcf86079 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.