Bug 436817 (fusecompress-review)

Note that this is ugly and I need some serious assistannce; The package includes
a mount.fusecompress wrapper which looks as follows, to enable me to be able to
place the filesystem in fstab and add options there:

IFS=,
for i in $4
do
        if [ ! "$i" = "rw" ]
        then
                echo $i
        fi
done |xargs /usr/bin/fusecompress $1 $2

Obviously rw is not the only possible option not understandable by fusecompress.
I guess there should be no such script, I am just not aware how to do that, and
thus I would be very thankful if someone with previous experience with fuse had
a short look at this and kicked me in the right direction.

Thanks!

I'll review it.

REVIEW:

MUST Items:

+ rpmlint silent.
+ The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package included in %doc.
+ The spec file written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source.

[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum fusecompress-1.99.14.tar.gz*
a1342b263ae1d115af5c11568bdedd72  fusecompress-1.99.14.tar.gz
a1342b263ae1d115af5c11568bdedd72  fusecompress-1.99.14.tar.gz.1
[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ 

+ The package successfully compiled and build into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture (ppc).
+ All build dependencies listed in BuildRequires.
+ A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ The package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ All files, a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+  At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:

+ Works for me.


As to /usr/sbin/mount.fusecompress - I don't think this is an issue since we may
easily use this package w/o it completely. So if someone will find some bugs
related to this script he should fill a bug.

So it's APPROVED.

Ok, so I'll improve without the script for now.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: fusecompress
Short Description: FUSE based compressed file system implementation
Owners: lkundrak
Branches: EL-5
Cvsextras Commits: yes

Hum. Should this be named 'fuse-fusecompress' or 'fuse-compress' ? 
Almost all the other fuse packages are 'fuse-%{name}'.

Also, further note that EL5 kernels have NO fuse support. ;( 

Kevin: Is there a guideline about naming fuse modules? I'd prefer sticking with
the upstream name, unless there's one. fuse-fusecompres doesn't sound like the
name an average user would expect this package to be named.

And, right, no fuse in RHEL-5; I did not realize that I got that thingie from
atrpms. Please, just create the devel branch.

Well, you could always Provides: fusecompress, but in any case there isn't any
guideline on fuse names that I know of. One other fuse package doesn't use the
'fuse-' prefix either. 

cvs done.

For me using such prefixes looks very ugly solution. Instead of extending list
of available groups in /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.4.2.2/GROUPS we add stupid fuse-
erlang- python- and other prefixes.

Another one restriction is that we use only one group instead of list. 

Thanks Peter, thanks Kevin.
Imported and built.