Spec Name or Url: http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/diskscrub/scrub.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/diskscrub/scrub-1.7-2.src.rpm Description: This utility writes patterns on files or disk devices to make retrieving the data more difficult. It operates in one of three modes: 1) the special file corresponding to an entire disk is scrubbed and all data on it is destroyed; 2) a regular file is scrubbed and only the data in the file (and optionally its name in the directory entry) is destroyed; or 3) a regular file is created, expanded until the file system is full, then scrubbed as in 2).
I forgot to mention that I will need a sponsor.
I don't have permission to sponser you, but here's an initial package review. MD5Sum: faf66a307afbd06d57f617fa3176870f scrub-1.7.tar.bz2 Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Files have appropriate permissions and owners * Package builds fine in Mock for FC5. * Rpmlint does not find problems Bad: * Missing (rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at beginning of %install section.
Here is a new version of the spec file and the srpm which fixes the missing rm -rf in the install section. http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/diskscrub/scrub.spec http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/diskscrub/scrub-1.7-3.src.rpm
Hi Ben & Brian, this package looks fine (Brian did a good review), built in mock, and ran without seg-faulting on my system (FC4). So I'd like to sponsor Ben if someone hasn't already. APPROVED. And Ben, have you submitted the account paperwork? I can't seem to locate your username in the account system.
Veto. There is "scrub" in FE already.
Hi Michael, you're absolutely right. So, I'll mark this entry as "NOTABUG". And if Ben would like to have the existing FE version of scrub upgraded to 1.7 (from the current 1.6 which is available for FC4 and devel) then please file a separate enhancement bug for that. And, in future, I'm going to be more careful and check for existing FE packages so I can hopefully avoid a repeat of this embarrassing situation. :-)