Bug 500922
Summary: | Review Request: zerofree - Utility to force unused ext2 inodes and blocks to zero | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, herrold, notting, susi.lehtola |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | susi.lehtola:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 1.0.1-5.fc11 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-05-18 12:03:36 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
Richard W.M. Jones
2009-05-14 21:20:50 UTC
rpmlint is silent on this package. w3m -dump http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/uml/index.html > index.html is not OK since the build nodes don't have an internet connection. List the file as Source1 instead. Yes, very good point. I'll post an updated package in a moment containing that & a few other fixes ... Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree-1.0.1-2.src.rpm * Fri May 15 2009 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 1.0.1-2 - Include the index file as a source file. - Improve the description, remove spelling mistakes and other typos. rpmlint output is clean. 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. NEEDSWORK - License in source code is GPL+ not GPLv2. License field must be GPL+. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. ~OK - It's also possible to use the original srpm as the source: Source0: ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/zerofree/zerofree-1.0.1-1orc.src.rpm BuildRequires: cpio # Create build directory without unpacking sources %setup -T -c -n %{name}-%{version} # Unpack original srpm rpm2cpio %{SOURCE0} | cpio -i # Unpack tar file tar zxf zerofree-%{version}.tgz Then you need to change directory to %{name}-%{version} before compiling MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - Use make CC="gcc $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" instead of make RPM_OPT_FLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to honor optflags and cp -p %{SOURCE1} . to preserve time stamp of the web page. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. N/A MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. N/A MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. NEEDSWORK - Fix the optflag problem. MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A 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. NEEDSWORK - The tag is %{?dist} not %{?_dist} 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. Mock build is OK. I think this should fix everything mentioned in the review: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree-1.0.1-3.fc11.src.rpm * Fri May 15 2009 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 1.0.1-3 - Use the upstream SRPM directly, unpacking source from it. - License is GPLv2+. - Fix use of dist macro. - Pass the RPM OPTFLAGS to C compiler (should also fix debuginfo pkg). - Use 'cp -p' to preserve timestamps when copying index.html file. - Fix the defattr line. (In reply to comment #8) > * Fri May 15 2009 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> - 1.0.1-3 > > - Use the upstream SRPM directly, unpacking source from it. > - License is GPLv2+. The license is not GPLv2+, it's GPL+ (also GPLv1 is OK). See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F The source code doesn't mention any version, it just states that the code is under the GPL. => License field must be GPL+ If you want, you can shorten cd %{name}-%{version} mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir} cp zerofree $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir} to a one-liner: install -D -p -m 755 %{name}-%{version}/zerofree $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir}/zerofree (This also preserves the time stamp, even though it doesn't matter in case of a compiled binary.) Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree-1.0.1-4.fc11.src.rpm I have made the two changes you suggested. Everything has been fixed, the package has been APPROVED Thanks Jussi! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: zerofree Short Description: Utility to force unused ext2 inodes and blocks to zero Owners: rjones Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 I am technically not the upstream -- just the birddog and early packager, at owlriver ... please point to the URL upstream's DL link for Source0 http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/uml/zerofree-1.0.1.tgz -- Russ herrold Thinking about it. you may also want to add the companion: http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/uml/sparsify.c to the package as well which adds some additional function on making a more slender FS -- Russ herrold Given Russ herrold's comments above, I have prepared a new package. This package changes the upstream URL (and removes the whole unpacking-the-SRPM thing). More importantly it also includes the sparsify program. I'll leave it up to you (Jussi) whether you want to reopen the review of this package. Here it is: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/zerofree-1.0.1-5.fc11.src.rpm rpmlint is still clean. No, the package is fine as it is; sparsify is also under GPL+ and doesn't raise any other issues. What's up with the changelog, though? You've merged all of the changes of the interstitial specs together? Please, keep a full changelog. Ah I was just keeping them all under the same date heading, but I can split them out if you like / in future. Copied the CVS request down here to make it easier to find: New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: zerofree Short Description: Utility to force unused ext2 inodes and blocks to zero Owners: rjones Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 cvs done. zerofree-1.0.1-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zerofree-1.0.1-5.fc10 zerofree-1.0.1-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zerofree-1.0.1-5.fc11 Bit of a build problem in EL-5 on ppc at the moment. I need to ask someone in rel-eng to take a look. http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-5-epel/2328-zerofree-1.0.1-5.el5/ppc/root.log Seemed to be a temporary blib, and zerofree is now built in EL-5 too. http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-5-epel/2330-zerofree-1.0.1-5.el5/ Thanks everyone for helping, particularly Jussi for the detailed and useful review. zerofree-1.0.1-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. zerofree-1.0.1-5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |