Bug 221175 - Review Request: libisofs - A library to create ISO 9660 disk images
Review Request: libisofs - A library to create ISO 9660 disk images
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Ville Skyttä
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-02 13:58 EST by Jesse Keating
Modified: 2015-05-20 07:00 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-01-15 10:44:39 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jesse Keating 2007-01-02 13:58:35 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.3-1.src.rpm
Description: 
libisofs the library to pack up hard disk files and directories into a
ISO 9660 disk image. This may then be brought to CD via libburn.
libisofs is to be the foundation of our upcoming mkisofs emulation.

This software used to be a part of the libburn source package but has been split out into its own tarball, and thus its own srpm.
Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2007-01-02 15:43:44 EST
- All build dependencies are spurious
- "-n libisofs-devel" could be replaced by just "devel" in devel's %package and
  %description, and libisofs by %{name} in -devel main pkg dependency
- Summary: s/A library/Library/
- Unowned dir /usr/include/libisofs
- Add CONTRIBUTORS to %doc
- Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files
- Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs?
- Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package?
- Bad grammar in %description: "libisofs the library to ...", dunno if the last
  sentence of it is needed, it's subject to bitrot
Comment 2 Ville Skyttä 2007-01-02 15:45:41 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> - All build dependencies are spurious

Sorry, libburn-devel is not, but others apparently are.
Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2007-01-02 16:22:31 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> - All build dependencies are spurious
Ah, probably carryover from when the package was built in libburn.

> - "-n libisofs-devel" could be replaced by just "devel" in devel's %package and
>   %description, and libisofs by %{name} in -devel main pkg dependency

Whoops, more carry over from previous package.

> - Summary: s/A library/Library/

Fixed.

> - Unowned dir /usr/include/libisofs

Hrm, I assumed that it would pick up ownership of that since it was creating the
dir, my bad.

> - Add CONTRIBUTORS to %doc

Hurray for new files.

> - Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files

This is a complaint with upstream that I've asked them to fix.  Is this really a
problem that I should chmod the source?

> - Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs?

Upstream issue, I'll ask them to fix it for the next release.

> - Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package?

I was told yes, but I'll clarify.

> - Bad grammar in %description: "libisofs the library to ...", dunno if the last
>   sentence of it is needed, it's subject to bitrot

Yeah, this was their upstream content.


http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.3-2.src.rpm
Spec url is the same.
Comment 4 Ville Skyttä 2007-01-02 17:13:20 EST
(In reply to comment #3)

> > - Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files
> This is a complaint with upstream that I've asked them to fix.  Is this
> really a problem that I should chmod the source?

Well, it took you many more keystrokes to ask that question than fixing it would
have taken... :).  Why not?  Don't we want proper permissions for all installed
files?

> > - Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs?
> Upstream issue, I'll ask them to fix it for the next release.

Unless I'm missing something, I think it should be patched in this package. 
Unless of course you prefer waiting for the next upstream release before
continuing the review.

> > - Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package?
> I was told yes, but I'll clarify.

Looks spurious to me.  Nothing is linked against libburn, nor it is dlopened,
and I don't see anything else in libburn that would be a candidate for
explaining the dependency.  Caveat: I haven't tried actually using this package
for anything.
Comment 5 Jesse Keating 2007-01-02 22:23:48 EST
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> 
> > > - Quite a few executable permissions in -debuginfo source files
> > This is a complaint with upstream that I've asked them to fix.  Is this
> > really a problem that I should chmod the source?
> 
> Well, it took you many more keystrokes to ask that question than fixing it would
> have taken... :).  Why not?  Don't we want proper permissions for all installed
> files?

I'd rather see it fixed upstream.  I'll "fix" it if needbe, but this really
doesn't hurt anything.

> > > - Dubious Cflags in *.pc, should be -I${includedir}/libisofs?
> > Upstream issue, I'll ask them to fix it for the next release.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, I think it should be patched in this package. 
> Unless of course you prefer waiting for the next upstream release before
> continuing the review.

As I prefer it to be fixed upstream, I'll either get them to do another release,
or at least generate the patch based on an upstream source fix.

> > > - Is the libburn dependency really needed in the main package?
> > I was told yes, but I'll clarify.
> 
> Looks spurious to me.  Nothing is linked against libburn, nor it is dlopened,
> and I don't see anything else in libburn that would be a candidate for
> explaining the dependency.  Caveat: I haven't tried actually using this package
> for anything.

I should have something more for you tomorrow after discussing with upstream. 
I'm just playing package monkey here.
Comment 6 Jesse Keating 2007-01-03 15:26:23 EST
http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.4-1.src.rpm

New upstream tarball (emailed to me, they haven't posted it on their website
yet, I"ll wait for that before importing/building).  This should resolve the
remaining issues.
Comment 7 Ville Skyttä 2007-01-07 06:26:10 EST
Upstream 0.2.4 tarball is available, but it's not quite the same as the copy
included in 0.2.4-1 SRPM, lib micro version has changed.

Upstream URLs changed: libburn -> libburnia, libburn-download -> libburnia-download

I think the doxygen docs belong to -devel rather than the main package.

The dependency on libburn is still there.
Comment 8 Jesse Keating 2007-01-08 17:30:44 EST
Yeah, I noticed he changed a few things in the tarball, this srpm uses the now
upstream one.

Dep on libburn is because libisofs can actually make a call to libburn I'm told.

Moving the docs to devel.

http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.4-2.src.rpm
Comment 9 Ville Skyttä 2007-01-09 14:11:51 EST
(In reply to comment #8)
> Dep on libburn is because libisofs can actually make a call to libburn I'm told.

I've been told that a few times here too, but I'm still too thick to understand
how does that happen.  Anyway, I won't block the package on that, but suggest
finding out the real details and fixing in future package revisions if applicable.

Approved.
Comment 10 Jesse Keating 2007-01-15 10:44:39 EST
Built, asking for FC-6 branch.  Added to owners.list too.
Comment 11 Jesse Keating 2007-03-13 13:07:09 EDT
Please add 'denis' as a co-owner of this module.
Comment 12 Warren Togami 2007-03-13 18:04:01 EDT
Please provide the bugzilla name.
Comment 13 Jesse Keating 2007-03-13 20:59:29 EDT
denis@poolshark.org
Comment 14 Robert Scheck 2010-02-15 19:02:33 EST
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libisofs
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Owners: robert
Comment 15 Kevin Fenzi 2010-02-15 22:40:32 EST
cvs done.
Comment 17 Robert Scheck 2015-05-19 19:03:13 EDT
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libisofs
New Branches: epel7
Owners: robert
Comment 18 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-05-20 07:00:22 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.