Spec URL:https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse-20180628gitbe55741-1.fc28.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse.spec Description: This project is a read-only FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't yet document the disk format of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. It may not be able to read all files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. Use at your own risk. But since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. Be aware that not all compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so far). Thus, the driver may return compressed files instead of uncompressed ones. Fedora Account System Username: hadess
- Not needed: Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root %defattr(-,root,root) - Not good: Version: %{date}git%{short_gittag} Release: 1%{?dist} If you do a dev snapshot, the date and gittag should be in Release: Version: 0 Release: 0.1.%{date}git%{short_gittag}%{?dist} See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots - Thus use: Source0: https://github.com/sgan81/%{name}/archive/%{short_gittag}/%{name}-%{short_gittag}.tar.gz - The changelog entry should contain the version-release info: * Thu Jun 28 2018 Bastien Nocera <bnocera> - 0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741 - Use: %global short_gittag %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7}) - The LICENSE must be included with %license, not %doc: %files %{_bindir}/apfs-* %doc README.md %license LICENSE - You're using a mix of tabs and space in the SPEC, use one or the other' not both. - lzfse is licensed under BSD. Add it to the license field and add a comment explaining the license breakdown. Also install the lzfse LICENSE file as LICENSE-lzfse - Use %global, not %define - Split the description lines to stay below 80 characters per line. 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/apfs-fuse/review-apfs-fuse/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license. [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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). [?]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define date 20180628, %define gittag be557410232d84929614410d9048468bc6e5f671, %define short_gittag %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7}) [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm apfs-fuse-debuginfo-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm apfs-fuse-debugsource-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.src.rpm apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a read-only FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk format of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read all files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so far). apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump-quick apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-fuse apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a read-only FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk format of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read all files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so far). apfs-fuse.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Not needed: > > Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root Fixed. > %defattr(-,root,root) Fixed. > - Not good: > > Version: %{date}git%{short_gittag} > Release: 1%{?dist} > > If you do a dev snapshot, the date and gittag should be in Release: > > Version: 0 > Release: 0.1.%{date}git%{short_gittag}%{?dist} > > See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots > > - Thus use: > > Source0: > https://github.com/sgan81/%{name}/archive/%{short_gittag}/%{name}- > %{short_gittag}.tar.gz Done. > - The changelog entry should contain the version-release info: > > * Thu Jun 28 2018 Bastien Nocera <bnocera> - > 0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741 My vim macros can't generate it. This is tagged in the repo, so why is this important? > - Use: > > %global short_gittag %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7}) Done. Why is this not mentioned in the packaging guidelines? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots > - The LICENSE must be included with %license, not %doc: > > %files > %{_bindir}/apfs-* > %doc README.md > %license LICENSE Done. > - You're using a mix of tabs and space in the SPEC, use one or the other' > not both. Used spaces now. > - lzfse is licensed under BSD. Add it to the license field and add a > comment explaining the license breakdown. Also install the lzfse LICENSE > file as LICENSE-lzfse The lzfse sources already include this, and the combined work is GPLv2+. I don't think we need this. > - Use %global, not %define Done. > - Split the description lines to stay below 80 characters per line. I've reworked this as well. > 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". > 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/bob/packaging/review/apfs-fuse/review-apfs-fuse/licensecheck.txt I don't think it's necessary, as the combined work's license is already mentioned correctly. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Fixed. > [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. > [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license. > [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. > [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). > [?]: 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. > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define date 20180628, %define > gittag be557410232d84929614410d9048468bc6e5f671, %define short_gittag > %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7}) Fixed. > [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [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: apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm > apfs-fuse-debuginfo-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm > apfs-fuse-debugsource-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm > apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.src.rpm > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a read-only > FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk > format of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read > all files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But > since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all > compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so > far). Fixed. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump > apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump-quick > apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-fuse Won't be fixing this. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a read-only > FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk format > of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read all > files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But > since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all > compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so > far). Fixed. > apfs-fuse.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line > 5) Fixed. > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings. New spec and package at: https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse-0-1.20180628gitbe55741.fc28.src.rpm
You're missing bundled() Provides for bundled libraries: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > You're missing bundled() Provides for bundled libraries: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle Fixed, at the same location.
(In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #2) > > > - The changelog entry should contain the version-release info: > > > > * Thu Jun 28 2018 Bastien Nocera <bnocera> - > > 0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741 > > My vim macros can't generate it. This is tagged in the repo, so why is this > important? > To link the changelog message to the version? There has been discussion about removing the %changelog and use the git tag instead but nothing definitive yet. You'll get an RPMLINT error if you don't include it. > > - Use: > > > > %global short_gittag %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7}) > > Done. Why is this not mentioned in the packaging guidelines? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots > It is mentioned here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apfs-fuse
Built into rawhide as apfs-fuse-0-2.20180628gitbe55741.fc29