Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils-0.1.0-0.fc6.0.src.rpm Description: This package provides the userland utilities for GFS (Global File System) version 1. mkfs, fsck, etc.
You spec contains this: if ["$1" = 0 ]; then This is invalid /bin/sh syntax. There must be a blank after the '['.
Mock build failed for rawhide i386 main.c:29:26: error: libvolume_id.h: No such file or directory You Need to add libvolume_id-devel in BuildRequires
Fixed that as well. (libvolume_id.h BuildRequire) New files are here: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils.spec http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils-0.1.0-0.fc6.2.src.rpm
Chris, I don't see you in the cvsextras group. Do you require sponsorship? See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored for more information.
Jason, Yes I do need sponsorship for this package. Can you sponsor me?
I can, but would need to look over this and your other submissions first. I hope to have some time to spend on extras reviews over the next couple of days.
Hi Chris, Since you've been sponsored by jkatz, I'll remove the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker. I've found a few things though: rpmlint of gfs-utils is not silent: W: gfs-utils incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-0.fc6.0 0.1.0-0.fc6.2 W: gfs-utils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gfs E: gfs-utils missing-mandatory-lsb-tag Description E: gfs-utils missing-mandatory-lsb-tag Short-Description W: gfs-utils incoherent-init-script-name gfs The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Scriptlets: missing "service" in %preun (wiki: ScriptletSnippets) Scriptlets: missing "service" in %postun (wiki: ScriptletSnippets) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. Please don't hardcode the distro in Release, use %dist
Ping?
I've updated the package. I don't know what 'missing-mandatory-lsb-tag' means and can't find any documentation on how to fix those errors. All other errors should be fixed. There is no central location for the gfs-utils-0.1.11.tar.gz script, it's pulled directly out of cvs which is found at sources.redhat.com/cluster/ http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils-0.1.11-3.src.rpm Let me know what else I need for this rpm.
Thanks Chris, > E: gfs-utils missing-mandatory-lsb-tag Description > E: gfs-utils missing-mandatory-lsb-tag Short-Description Those errors are about the init file rpmlint checks that file for tags between ### BEGIN INIT INFO and ### END INIT INFO The checks are defined in /usr/share/rpmlint/InitScriptCheck.py A few new rpmlint warnings have popped up: [ruben@odin i386]$ rpmlint gfs-utils-0.1.11-3.i386.rpm W: gfs-utils dangling-relative-symlink /sbin/mount.gfs mount.gfs2 W: gfs-utils dangling-relative-symlink /sbin/umount.gfs umount.gfs2 [ruben@odin i386]$ rpmlint gfs-utils-debuginfo-0.1.11-3.i386.rpm W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/log.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_dir.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/util.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/inode.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_bits.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/rgrp.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/file.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_bmap.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/bitmap.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_inode.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/block_list.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/bio.c
Hi Chris, Please respond, or I'll have to close this ticket in a week.
Sorry, I'll have to close this review.