Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/bmap-tools/bmap-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/bmap-tools/bmap-tools-3.5-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Tools to generate "block map" (a.k.a. bmap) files and flash images. Bmaptool is a generic tool for creating the block map (bmap) for a file, and copying files using the block map. The idea is that large file containing unused blocks, like raw system image files, can be copied or flashed a lot faster with bmaptool than with traditional tools like "dd" or "cp". See https://source.tizen.org/documentation/reference/bmaptool for more information. Fedora Account System Username: dcallagh
Why is the package named bmap-tools, with a python3-bmaptools subpackage and bmaptool subpackage? Seems unnecessary to be so inconsistent. Just call it bmaptools, with a python3-bmaptools subpackage.
Upstream themselves are pretty inconsistent with the spelling of the name. The project is "bmap-tools" (Github repo name, tarball name) thus the Fedora package is bmap-tools to match. The Python package name is "bmaptools" thus the Fedora subpackage providing the Python library is python3-bmaptools to match. The CLI command name is /usr/bin/bmaptool thus the Fedora subpackage providing the CLI command is bmaptool to match.
Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
This bug was accidentally closed due to a query error. Reopening.
(In reply to Dan Callaghan from comment #2) > Upstream themselves are pretty inconsistent with the spelling of the name. > > The project is "bmap-tools" (Github repo name, tarball name) thus the Fedora > package is bmap-tools to match. > > The Python package name is "bmaptools" thus the Fedora subpackage providing > the Python library is python3-bmaptools to match. > > The CLI command name is /usr/bin/bmaptool thus the Fedora subpackage > providing the CLI command is bmaptool to match. Meh, I would keep the main package as bmap-tools and add a Provides: bmaptool = %{version}-%{release} if you feel it is necessary. - Remove the shebang in %prep: python3-bmaptools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bmaptools/CLI.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bmap-tools/review-bmap- tools/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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 40960 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-bmaptools , bmaptool [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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. [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: python3-bmaptools-3.5-1.fc32.noarch.rpm bmaptool-3.5-1.fc32.noarch.rpm bmap-tools-3.5-1.fc32.src.rpm python3-bmaptools.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bmap -> bap, map, b map python3-bmaptools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmap -> bap, map, b map python3-bmaptools.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-bmaptools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bmaptools/CLI.py 644 /usr/bin/env python bmaptool.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bmap -> bap, map, b map bmaptool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmap -> bap, map, b map bmaptool.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary bmap-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bmaptool -> Ptolemaic bmap-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmaptool -> toadstool bmap-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cp -> co, c, p 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
I agree there's no need for a bmaptool subpackage just to match the executable name. What if they add another binary? And anyway, you can install specific binaries via `dnf install /usr/bin/bmaptool`; no need to match the subpackage name.
Thanks for the review. Here is an updated version, with the base package providing the CLI tool and the shebang stripped: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/bmap-tools/bmap-tools.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/bmap-tools/bmap-tools-3.5-2.fc32.src.rpm
LGTM, package approved.
Thanks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bmap-tools
FEDORA-2020-1502252811 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1502252811
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-9118c62f72 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-9118c62f72
bmap-tools-3.5-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1502252811
bmap-tools-3.5-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-9118c62f72
bmap-tools-3.5-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a0295b70cd
bmap-tools-3.5-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bmap-tools-3.5-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bmap-tools-3.5-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.