Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 199183
Review Request: e2tools - Manipulate files in unmounted ext2/ext3 filesystems
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:38 EST
Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/e2tools/e2tools.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/e2tools/e2tools-0.0.16-4.src.rpm
A simple set of utilities to read, write, and manipulate files in an
ext2/ext3 filesystem directly using the ext2fs library. This does not
require any of
- root access
- the filesystem to be mounted
- the kernel to support ext2
The utilities are: e2cp e2ln e2ls e2mkdir e2mv e2rm e2tail
Hi! I'm not yet sponsored so this is not official review.
* MUST items:
- rpmlint doesn't show anything
- package is named according to Packaging Naming Guidelines
- the spec file name is correct
- package meets Packaging Guidelines
- package is licensed with an open-source license - GPL, license field
match actual license and package contains file with text of license in %doc
- spec file is written in American English and is legible
- package successfully compile on i386
- package doesn't contain duplicate files in %files section
- %files section includes %defattr(...) line
- spec file contains proper %clean section
- macros is used proper in spec file
and all others 'must' doesn't concern this package.
I think you don't need CPPFLAGS="-Wall -Werror" in %build section, because
the build server has his own CPPFLAGS (I think so) and could you explain
what %%check section exaclty does?
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is successfull.
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows no errors
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package e2tools, in the
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in %doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (1829b2b261e0e0d07566066769b5b28b
- This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package owns all directories that it creates.
- This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
- This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
- This package used macros.
- Document files are included like README COPYING ChangeLog TODO AUTHORS.
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
* I did not test package.
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think you don't need CPPFLAGS="-Wall -Werror" in %build section, because
> the build server has his own CPPFLAGS (I think so) and could you explain
> what %%check section exaclty does?
I wanted them explicitly.
%check does a function test of the built binaries, making sure they do work.
It's just another build-stage.
Seems to have some 64-bit problems:
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
rm.c: In function 'e2rm':
rm.c:248: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size
(In reply to comment #4)
> Seems to have some 64-bit problems:
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> rm.c: In function 'e2rm':
> rm.c:248: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size
Is this a problem? It should be, e.g., a 32-bit integer -> 64-bit pointer?
It's obviously a problem in that it fails the build due to -Wall. Whether it
woulc actually cause any problems in the running program, I can't say since it
The expression in question is
(verbose) ? &verbose : NULL
That should almost certainly read
(void *) (
(verbose) ? &verbose : NULL )
Andreas, all, this should fix the compile problem mentioned:
Okay, new upload at http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/e2tools/e2tools.spec fixing the
x86_64 build issue and incorporating Uli's fixes.
This seems to have dropped through the cracks. I grabbed the package from
http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/e2tools/e2tools-0.0.16-5.src.rpm and it builds fine on
* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
e2tools = 0.0.16-5.fc6
* %check is present and all tests pass (as far as I can tell)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
Ping? This has been approved for three weeks now; any reason it hasn't been
checked in yet?
Andreas, if you're OK with it, I can take it over.