Bug 459871
| Summary: | Review Request: samefile - An utility to find identical files on the file system | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Vivek Shah <boni.vivek> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Rakesh Pandit <rpandit> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dmitry, fedora-package-review, notting, pahan |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rpandit:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-09-10 06:52:19 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Vivek Shah
2008-08-23 10:41:07 UTC
This is an unofficial quick review(as I am not a sponsor) to help this package:
1. You should add
%check
make test
to use test cases provided.
2. Confirm from upstream about license. From project page it looks to be BSD. But it is always good to verify.
3. Optional Suggestion: You may like to remove macros from URL.
+rpmlint clean
+Build on mock -- successfully
+summary -- okay
+description -- okay
+build root -- okay
I give priority to this:
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
+md5sum source from package:
5e51411512f693897f9cfd59c45071f7
from project resource:
5e51411512f693897f9cfd59c45071f7
- license tag correct, few source files (i confirm 1+)src files have license txt included but most of them don't have. So, you may like to confirm it from upstream.
+package naming
+spec file & base package name match
+macros used consistently, sane spec file
+compiler flags are appropriate
-you may like to request including a license file to upstream, though this is optional here -- moreover only few src files have license block.
+You may also like to contact upstream about you being packaging for fedora and they may -- once passed update there project page. Right now they have point to different RPMs (third party may be)
You should add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to 'Blocks' field, so that sponsors will notice your ticket and do read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 458624) Thanks for the reviews, I have updated the %check section and also added the ChangeLog file SPEC URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/spec/samefile.spec SRPM URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/srpms/samefile-2.12-2.fc8.src.rpm The license is BSD since this is the license specified in the spec file for creating the rpm for OpenSUSE distribution by the upstream author which is also included in the source tar. I will do a detailed review today or at least tomorrow ;-) [ APPROVED ] rpmlint is clean rp => rpmlint [rakesh@thulsadoom SRPMS]$ rp samefile-2.12-2.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rakesh@thulsadoom x86_64]$ rp samefile-2.12-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rakesh@thulsadoom x86_64]$ rp samefile-debuginfo-2.12-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Required: [x] Name (in accordance guidelines) [x] spec file name [x] License approved by fedora [x] Spec file is in American Eng and legible [x] Build successfully [x] BuildRequires okay [x] Duplicate files - nil [NA] locale [x] permissions -- okay [x] source link correct [x] packaging guidlines [x] Buildroot correct [x] owns every directory it creates [x] file encoding - checked [x] package has no dependency on files in %doc [NA] gui [x] No dependencies outside FHS guidelines [!] Source0 URL is wrong. It should be http://www.schweikhardt.net/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz . Without www it does not work. [x] md5sum Source from srpm: [rakesh@thulsadoom x86_64]$ md5sum samefile-2.12.tar.gz 5e51411512f693897f9cfd59c45071f7 Using Source0 as http://www.schweikhardt.net/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz [rakesh@thulsadoom samefile]$ md5sum samefile-2.12.tar.gz 5e51411512f693897f9cfd59c45071f7 md5sum matches [x] unnecessary files excluded [x] native compiler test [NA] devel package contains right files Optional suggestions: [!] request upstream to include license file. [!] Include ChangeLog (it has important info) *You may like to ignore them* Key NA = N/A, x = Check, ! = Problem, ? = Not evaluated Please correct URL before importing. You may also like to look at optional suggestions. Thanks for the review, I will look into the SOURCE0 URL and fix it if it is not working without www. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: samefile Short Description: An utility to find identical files on the file system Owners: bonii Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: cvs done. samefile-2.12-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samefile-2.12-3.fc9 samefile-2.12-3.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samefile-2.12-3.fc8 It has been submitted as an update. I am closing it as 'NEXTRELEASE' samefile-2.12-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. samefile-2.12-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: samefile New Branches: el6 Owners: buc Git done (by process-git-requests). |