Bug 225886
| Summary: | Merge Review: hfsutils | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | bashton, dwmw2, lemenkov, susi.lehtola |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | susi.lehtola:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-09-30 11:05:49 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
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 19:03:43 UTC
Taking on review. rpmlint output:
hfsutils.src:202: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr
hfsutils.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Tools for reading and writing Macintosh HFS volumes.
hfsutils.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Tools for reading and writing Macintosh HFS volumes.
hfsutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hfsutils-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A C library for reading and writing Macintosh HFS volumes.
hfsutils-x11.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A Tk-based front end for browsing and copying files.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
- Fix the above.
- Drop empty %config line in %files.
- Change buildroot to
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
- Drop INSTALL from %doc since it really isn't necessary. Also README can be dropped, since it is too about compilation.
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
SHOULD: Use INSTALL="install -p" as additional argument to make install to preserve time stamps.
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NEEDSFIX
- Devel package needs to provide %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. ?
- Any comment on this? In this case base package only contains binaries, so there's no need to require the base package. Consider including the %doc also in -devel, though.
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
Ping. ping dmwm2 ping again? Pong! It seems that David is busy with other stuff, so i decided to step in and fix all these small issues (except dropping README - I cannot decide whether we should drop it or no, but, however, if you're insisting, then I will drop it too). Here is a koji scratchbuild http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1705983 rpmlint log: [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/fuse/sshfs/work/Desktop/hfsutils-* hfsutils-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ I'm currently updating cvs branches, and will rebuild it very shortly. hfsutils-3.2.6-18.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hfsutils-3.2.6-18.fc11 hfsutils-3.2.6-18.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hfsutils-3.2.6-18.fc10 Okay. Still to be fixed:
SHOULD: Use INSTALL="install -p" as additional argument to make install to
preserve time stamps (header files are not probably generated in %build).
MUST: Devel package needs to provide %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}.
Oops. Forgot about *-static. I'll add these changes shortly. hfsutils-3.2.6-19.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hfsutils-3.2.6-19.fc11 hfsutils-3.2.6-19.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hfsutils-3.2.6-19.fc10 OK, APPROVED. hfsutils-3.2.6-19.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. hfsutils-3.2.6-19.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |