Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 170504
Review Request: makebootfat - Utility for creation bootable FAT disk
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:15 EST
Spec Url: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/makebootfat/makebootfat.spec
SRPM Url: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/makebootfat/makebootfat-1.4-1.src.rpm
This utility creates a bootable FAT filesystem and populates it
with files and boot tools.
It was mainly designed to create bootable USB and Fixed disk
for the AdvanceCD project (http://advancemame.sourceforge.net), but
can be successfully used separately for any purposes.
This utility can help anaconda to create universal diskboot.img, suitable for any type of USB booting...
In the future, when anaconda will support installing from flat file tree (not hd iso only ;)), it will be possible to create on a "big" USB disk full installation stuff with updates. (Currently it is possible for network installs only).
- rpmlint says:
E: makebootfat only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
Probably a good idea, these are mbrs and such, not shared objects and not
architecture dependent. Move this.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on FC4 i386
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
It would be a good idea to show upstream the doc you wrote.
> There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
I'm not a x86 guru, but "file ldlinux.bss" say "x86 boot sector", "mbrfat.bin"
has a source "mbrfat.asm" which has x86 commends...
Are you sure these two files are architecture independent?
Perhaps we even should specify ExclusiveArch tag...
ping :) ?
> Perhaps we even should specify ExclusiveArch tag...
Assume not, IMHO makebootfat executable can be run on any arch, just the result
(a disk image) seems to be x86-dependent.
OK, after reading the FHS I see that /usr/lib is the place for "internal
binaries". A boot sector and an executable qualify.
Note that under 64 bit these will appear under /usr/lib64, which is misleading.
You may want to force /usr/lib
As per comment 1, APPROVED.
> Note that under 64 bit these will appear under /usr/lib64
I think it would be better to behave like grub package, i.e. place these
x86-specific files under /usr/share/makebootfat/x86/* . IMHO it is more correct,
because under /usr/lib we should place some HOST-specific internal binaries, but
actually these two files are TARGET-specific...
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think it would be better to behave like grub package, i.e. place these
> x86-specific files under /usr/share/makebootfat/x86/* . IMHO it is more correct,
> because under /usr/lib we should place some HOST-specific internal binaries, but
> actually these two files are TARGET-specific...
OK, doing it like grub makes sense in that respect. Do it that way, and tell
upstream about this discussion about where to put these files, if you would please.