Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/btrfsmaintenance/fedora-33-x86_64/01728125-btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/btrfsmaintenance/fedora-33-x86_64/01728125-btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance-0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Scripts for btrfs maintenance tasks like periodic scrub, balance, trim or defrag on selected mountpoints or directories. This is a set of scripts supplementing the btrfs filesystem and aims to automate a few maintenance tasks. This means the scrub, balance, trim or defragmentation. Each of the tasks can be turned on/off and configured independently. The default config values were selected to fit the default installation profile with btrfs on the root filesystem. Overall tuning of the default values should give a good balance between effects of the tasks and low impact of other work on the system. If this does not fit your needs, please adjust the settings. Fedora Account System Username: atim
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54487860
Why is there a SUSE license header for the spec? The spec file is effectively trivial and even looks somewhat different from the one from SUSE[1]. Also, SUSE-style rcFOO stuff is completely broken in Fedora, and needs to be stripped from the spec. [1]: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/filesystems/btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance.spec?expand=1
@Neal thanks. I didn't know and appreciate your tip. I'll update .spec soon.
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/btrfsmaintenance/fedora-33-x86_64/01727279-btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/btrfsmaintenance/fedora-33-x86_64/01727279-btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance-0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm
> install -Dpm644 sysconfig.%{name} -t %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/%{name} This should probably be instead: "install -Dpm644 sysconfig.%{name} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/%{name}" The %files entry would then be: "%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/%{name}"
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) Yeah, this moment where i am not sure. At first i did as you suggested, but then i've decide to install it in same way as SUSE did. Anyway i've did as you suggested, hope we can test this soon: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/btrfsmaintenance/fedora-33-x86_64/01728125-btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/btrfsmaintenance/fedora-33-x86_64/01728125-btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance-0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm Also JFYI: i am gladly add you as main maintainer if you interesting in this package and you can restyle, reformat it as you like, i am OK with this. Thanks.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 30720 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: %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: btrfsmaintenance-0.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm btrfsmaintenance-0.5-1.fc34.src.rpm btrfsmaintenance.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US defragmentation -> fragmentation btrfsmaintenance.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance-functions 644 /bin/bash btrfsmaintenance.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US defragmentation -> fragmentation btrfsmaintenance.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- btrfsmaintenance.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US defragmentation -> fragmentation btrfsmaintenance.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kdave/btrfsmaintenance <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> btrfsmaintenance.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance-functions 644 /bin/bash 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kdave/btrfsmaintenance/archive/v0.5/btrfsmaintenance-0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0de747e630155ecbc438dfac23ffee00cb3f2ee4d01bb67724ef81826709cacb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0de747e630155ecbc438dfac23ffee00cb3f2ee4d01bb67724ef81826709cacb Requires -------- btrfsmaintenance (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash btrfs-progs config(btrfsmaintenance) Provides -------- btrfsmaintenance: btrfsmaintenance config(btrfsmaintenance) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1892715 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, fonts, Python, C/C++, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
This looks good to me now. PACKAGE APPROVED.
(In reply to Artem from comment #6) > Also JFYI: i am gladly add you as main maintainer if you interesting in this > package and you can restyle, reformat it as you like, i am OK with this. > Thanks. Feel free to do so. :)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/btrfsmaintenance
@Neal, done. Thank you! :)
FEDORA-2020-f3550e3b91 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f3550e3b91
FEDORA-2020-498df19261 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-498df19261
FEDORA-2020-f3550e3b91 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f3550e3b91 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f3550e3b91 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-498df19261 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-498df19261 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-498df19261 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-498df19261 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-f3550e3b91 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.