Bug 715119
Summary: | Review Request: gnome-encfs - Makes using encfs easier | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Heiko Adams <bugzilla> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | eldermarco, fedora-package-review, fschwarz, igeorgex, j, metherid, notting, paul, ricardo.arguello, ycnian |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-07-11 18:03:53 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 201449 |
Description
Heiko Adams
2011-06-21 22:06:54 UTC
At first glance,%{_datadir}/%{name}/* should be changed to %{_datadir}/%{name}/.Otherwise,directory /usr/share/hg_date can't be removed from your system when erasing this package. Another comment: %{__install} needs argument -p to preserves the files' timestamps. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps Hi, just a few comments, * The License field must be GPLv3+ (see the source file provided by upstream) * Currently, the correct version is 0.1. (See the source file provided by upstream) * Add each dependency on a single line: Requires: python Requires: gnome-python2-gnomekeyring Requires: fuse-encfs It's more readable. * %setup -q -n gnome-encfs This line could be: %setup -q -n %{name} * %{__install} -m 755 gnome-encfs %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/gnome-encfs.py And This line could be: %{__install} -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}.py But, * You don't need the file gnome-encfs (Source1). Just install gnome-encfs (from tarball) in %{buildroot}%{_bindir} rpmlint: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/gnome-encfs-23hg-1.20110621.fc15.* gnome-encfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyring -> keying, key ring, key-ring gnome-encfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US login -> loin, logic, lo gin gnome-encfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autostart -> auto start, auto-start, autos tart gnome-encfs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-encfs gnome-encfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyring -> keying, key ring, key-ring gnome-encfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US login -> loin, logic, lo gin gnome-encfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autostart -> auto start, auto-start, autos tart gnome-encfs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnome-encfs.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. updated spec and srpm: Spec URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/whokbypjv4neatm/gnome-encfs.spec?dl=1 SRPM URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/27b2gdonco1t47e/gnome-encfs-0.1hg-2.20110621.fc15.src.rpm?dl=1 Can anyone please set the "need sponsor" flag? Updated files SRPM: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/3jplxy3y6nqbnv2/gnome-encfs-0.1hg-4.20110813.fc15.src.rpm?dl=1 SPEC: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/whokbypjv4neatm/gnome-encfs.spec?dl=1 just wanted to mention that the rpm works fine for me on Fedora 16 (with a tiny change as the "README" file is now "README.md"). I don't use gnome and I've no hope of actually being able to test this, but I see it's been around for quite some time without much progress. So, some questions and comments. Is the package remotely up to date? Upstream shows commits as recently as January. Your tarball includes stuff like .hg_archival.txt and .hgignore, but that's not a really big deal. Is the "hg" really part of the upstream version? It appears that the upstream script has VERSION="0.1" Where does the "hg" come from? The license appears to be GPLv3+, not GPLv3, as the script includes the "any later version" language. You shouldn't use things like %{_mkdir_p}; just use "mkdir -p". http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros There is no need to have the %clean section, nor the %defattr line in %files. rpmlint just says: gnome-encfs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnome-encfs.tar.gz Which is fine, but it would be good if the tarball had some name related to the checkout you did. gnome-encfs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-encfs It's nice to have manual pages if possible, but it's not up to you to write them. I'm no longer using gnome-encfs so if anybody wants to take over the review-request please feel free to do so. If anyone wants to submit gnome-encfs, they should file their own review ticket and set this one as a duplicate. |