Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/bashmount/bashmount.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/bashmount/SRPMS/bashmount-3.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: A menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media. This was previously accepted into Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787858 It was retired in February 2013 as it had not been ported to use udisks2. Upstream (aka me) has since found renewed interest in this project. It is now suitable once again for inclusion in Fedora. This is a request to re-review this package.
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/bashmount/bashmount.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/bashmount/SRPMS/bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc21.src.rpm * Sat Apr 26 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 3.2.0-2 - do not depend on udisks2 on EL6
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc20.noarch.rpm bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc20.src.rpm bashmount.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmount -> unmounted, Mount, mount bashmount.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmount -> unmounted, Mount, mount 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint bashmount bashmount.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmount -> unmounted, Mount, mount 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- bashmount (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash config(bashmount) udisks2 Provides -------- bashmount: bashmount config(bashmount) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/bashmount/bashmount-3.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 814ee05cd433cff369da46c199803f5e7990395f0d99480ac6294e07ac2c6850 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 814ee05cd433cff369da46c199803f5e7990395f0d99480ac6294e07ac2c6850 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1089493 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Two non blocking questions - Any tests (for %check skope) are I guess out of any scope, right? Sad :( - Is this pure bash? If it depends on bashism, can it be fixed to not relay onbashism but be ok with any shell? If not, shouldnt be bash as requires? I know that bash is in group of not necessary (== sure) requires, but maybe in this case it is worthy to include. Anyway grate job. I 'm happy that I found this in reviwe waiting list. Tank you for it. If you are wiling of swap review, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121402 , but dont feel yourself in debt. Ok. to go.
You should give a try for rpm 4.12+, it supports Suggests: udisks2 now. http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.12.0
If this will go to f21 then suggest will not be here. But I guess this depends on maintainer. Thank you for watching (not just this ) review
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #5) > If this will go to f21 then suggest will not be here. But I guess this > depends on maintainer. It will go to f21. But yum doesn't support this feature...
Thanks very much for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bashmount Short Description: A menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media Upstream URL: https://github.com/jamielinux/bashmount Owners: jamielinux Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
> %files > … > %{_mandir}/man1/bashmount.1* Shouldn't that be with %doc in front? %doc %{_mandir}/man1/bashmount.1*
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #9) > > %files > > … > > %{_mandir}/man1/bashmount.1* > > Shouldn't that be with %doc in front? > %doc %{_mandir}/man1/bashmount.1* No. See other spec files or the guidelines on the wiki for more info.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to Jamie Nguyen from comment #8) > New Package SCM Request > ======================= > Package Name: bashmount > Short Description: A menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media > Upstream URL: https://github.com/jamielinux/bashmount > Owners: jamielinux > Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 > InitialCC: There is only a master branch, therefore I guess this needs to be a Package Change Request: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: bashmount New Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 Owners: jamielinux
Ping? I am wondering: Are you still interested in bringing bashmount into Fedora? In SCM, there's already bashmount available (initial import done by you in 02.2012), but obsoleted currently due to a udisks2 failure (02.2013).
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #15) > Ping? I am wondering: Are you still interested in bringing bashmount into > Fedora? > In SCM, there's already bashmount available (initial import done by you in > 02.2012), but obsoleted currently due to a udisks2 failure (02.2013). Yes, in the process of importing. Had so many things on todo list, I just kept forgetting about this.
bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc21
bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc20
bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-2.fc19
bashmount-3.2.0-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-2.el7
bashmount-3.2.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-2.el6
(In reply to Jamie Nguyen from comment #16) … > Yes, in the process of importing. Had so many things on todo list, I just > kept forgetting about this. Thanks. I'll test when the package is pushed into @updates-testing.
bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc21
bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc20
bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc19
bashmount-3.2.0-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-3.el7
bashmount-3.2.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-3.2.0-3.el6
bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
bashmount-3.2.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
bashmount-3.2.0-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.