Bug 1144014 - Review Request: gphotofs - A FUSE filesystem module to mount your camera as a filesystem
Summary: Review Request: gphotofs - A FUSE filesystem module to mount your camera as a...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Florian "der-flo" Lehner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-09-18 12:59 UTC by Jaroslav Škarvada
Modified: 2014-11-01 16:38 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: gphotofs-0.5-1.fc21
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-09-21 21:32:32 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
dev: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jaroslav Škarvada 2014-09-18 12:59:47 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/gphotofs/gphotofs.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/gphotofs/gphotofs-0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: A filesystem client based on libgphoto2 that exposes supported cameras as filesystems; while some cameras implement the USB Mass Storage class
and already appear as filesystems (making this program redundant), many
use the Picture Transfer Protocol (PTP) or some other custom protocol.
But as long as the camera is supported by libgphoto2, it can be mounted
as a filesystem using this program.
Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad

I am going to forward the bad FSF address issue to upstream.

Comment 1 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-09-18 17:47:15 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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. 
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7618962
[-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gphotofs-0.5-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          gphotofs-0.5-1.fc22.src.rpm
gphotofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
gphotofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
gphotofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystems -> file systems, file-systems, ecosystems
gphotofs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gphotofs/COPYING
gphotofs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gphotofs
gphotofs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
gphotofs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
gphotofs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystems -> file systems, file-systems, ecosystems
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint gphotofs
gphotofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
gphotofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
gphotofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystems -> file systems, file-systems, ecosystems
gphotofs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gphotofs/COPYING
gphotofs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gphotofs
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
gphotofs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libexif.so.12()(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2()(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6)(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.8)(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgphoto2.so.6()(64bit)
    libgphoto2_port.so.10()(64bit)
    libgphoto2_port.so.10(LIBGPHOTO2_5_0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
gphotofs:
    gphotofs
    gphotofs(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gphoto/gphotofs-0.5.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 676ec4de69a81c193ffc31bdc7b587ac2a2cc3780b14f0e7c9c4c0a517b343cc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 676ec4de69a81c193ffc31bdc7b587ac2a2cc3780b14f0e7c9c4c0a517b343cc


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1144014
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

===== Solution =====
      APPROVED

Comment 2 Jaroslav Škarvada 2014-09-19 13:50:51 UTC
Thanks for the review.

Comment 3 Jaroslav Škarvada 2014-09-19 13:52:56 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: gphotofs
Short Description: A FUSE filesystem module to mount your camera as a filesystem
Upstream URL: http://www.gphoto.org/proj/gphotofs/
Owners: jskarvad
Branches: f20 f21

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-19 19:11:02 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2014-09-21 21:51:25 UTC
gphotofs-0.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gphotofs-0.5-1.fc21

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-09-21 22:19:24 UTC
gphotofs-0.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gphotofs-0.5-1.fc20

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-10-23 06:25:19 UTC
gphotofs-0.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-11-01 16:38:36 UTC
gphotofs-0.5-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.