Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02073972-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02073972-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs-20210105-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: ntfs2btrfs is a tool which does in-place conversion of Microsoft's NTFS filesystem to the open-source filesystem Btrfs, much as btrfs-convert does for ext2. The original image is saved as a reflink copy at image/ntfs.img, and if you want to keep the conversion you can delete this to free up space. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Taking this review
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/1938464-ntfs2btrfs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== 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: ntfs2btrfs-20210105-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ntfs2btrfs-debuginfo-20210105-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ntfs2btrfs-debugsource-20210105-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ntfs2btrfs-20210105-1.fc35.src.rpm ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reflink -> ref link, ref-link, interlink ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ntfs -> fonts ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ntfs2btrfs is a tool which does in-place conversion of Microsoft's NTFS filesystem ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ntfs2btrfs ntfs2btrfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reflink -> ref link, ref-link, interlink ntfs2btrfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ntfs -> fonts ntfs2btrfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg ntfs2btrfs.src: E: description-line-too-long C ntfs2btrfs is a tool which does in-place conversion of Microsoft's NTFS filesystem 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ntfs2btrfs-debuginfo-20210105-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reflink -> ref link, ref-link, interlink ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ntfs -> fonts ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ntfs2btrfs is a tool which does in-place conversion of Microsoft's NTFS filesystem ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ntfs2btrfs 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/maharmstone/ntfs2btrfs/archive/20210105/ntfs2btrfs-20210105.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5da149d91563c7249c612f6d7356a05b09b0ca6af0808225fd3e17f38cfe043 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5da149d91563c7249c612f6d7356a05b09b0ca6af0808225fd3e17f38cfe043 Requires -------- ntfs2btrfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ntfs2btrfs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ntfs2btrfs-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ntfs2btrfs: ntfs2btrfs ntfs2btrfs(x86-64) ntfs2btrfs-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ntfs2btrfs-debuginfo ntfs2btrfs-debuginfo(x86-64) ntfs2btrfs-debugsource: ntfs2btrfs-debugsource ntfs2btrfs-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1938464 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ruby, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Java, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Looks like this project includes an embedded copy of https://github.com/ebiggers/ntfs-3g-system-compression/ under ntfs2btrfs-20210105/src/ebiggers. This doesn't look like the kind of thing that can be sanely packaged separately, but I think you should still declare it in the spec. Also, a minor rpmlint nit: ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ntfs2btrfs is a tool which does in-place conversion of Microsoft's NTFS filesystem
Updated build with suggested fixes: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02074338-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02074338-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs-20210105-1.fc35.src.rpm
Thanks, lgtm, APPROVED
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ntfs2btrfs
FEDORA-2021-2dd528357c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2dd528357c
FEDORA-2021-c977302a80 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c977302a80 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c977302a80 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-2dd528357c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-2dd528357c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2dd528357c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-658d17845d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-658d17845d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-658d17845d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-658d17845d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-c977302a80 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-2dd528357c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.