Fedora Merge Review: e2fsprogs http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/e2fsprogs/ Initial Owner: twoerner
e2fsprogs-1.39-11 prepared for review
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: e2fsprogs Updated Fedora Owners: sandeen,esandeen
There isn't a sandeen address in the account system. Can you re-request what you want to do here? Just change owner?
e2fsprogs.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 113, tab: line 1)
Taking over review.
rpmlint output: e2fsprogs.src: W: strange-permission uuidd.init 0755 e2fsprogs.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes e4fsprogs e2fsprogs.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides e4fsprogs e2fsprogs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. - I suggest enabling the e4fsprogs obsolete only when building on RHEL, i.e. %if 0%{?rhel} > 0 Obsoletes: e4fsprogs < %{version}-%{release} Provides: e4fsprogs = %{version}-%{release} %endif - I'd break the requires line in two due to the versioning. Requires: e2fsprogs-libs = %{version}-%{release}, device-mapper - Is the Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig really necessary since ldconfig is part of glibc? - Change Requires: /sbin/install-info to Requires: info as info provides install-info on all distributions, at least from RHEL 4 onwards. - libuuid-devel needs to Provides: libuuid-static = %{version}-%{release} - libdss-devel needs to Provides: libdss-static = %{version}-%{release} - libcom_err-devel needs to Provides: libcom_err-static = %{version}-%{release} - -devel needs to Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release} - Summary of -libs is incorrect: Summary: Ext2/3/4 filesystem-specific shared libraries and headers (no headers are present)
- %setup argument -n e2fsprogs-%{version} is not necessary. - Actually, whole rpmlint output is: e2fsprogs.src: W: strange-permission uuidd.init 0755 e2fsprogs.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes e4fsprogs e2fsprogs.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides e4fsprogs e2fsprogs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcom_err.x86_64: W: no-documentation libss.x86_64: W: no-documentation libuuid.x86_64: W: no-documentation uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd uuidd.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/libuuid 02775 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. You could add at least COPYING to the lib* and uuidd packages. - You are explicitly referring to /etc/rc.d/init.d/uuidd in the %files of uuidd, I suggest using the %{_initrddir} macro. ** MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Mixing of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which is not allowed. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Missing COPYING. - I suggest placing MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NEEDSWORK - See comment #6. MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. NEEDSWORK - Devel needs to Requires: pkgconfig. MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
Thanks for the review, I know e2fsprogs needs some cleanup, it's been around for so long a lot of cruft has accumulated :) -Eric
(In reply to comment #8) > Thanks for the review, I know e2fsprogs needs some cleanup, it's been around > for so long a lot of cruft has accumulated :) Oh but this was from the cleanest end :)
Ok, care to look at the results in: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/scratch/sandeen/task_1482920/ ? Thanks, -Eric
(In reply to comment #10) > Ok, care to look at the results in: > > http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/scratch/sandeen/task_1482920/ ? You don't need to include COPYING in -devel, since -devel requires e2fsprogs-libs which contains it. Otherwise it seems that all my comments have been taken into account. rpmlint gives now uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd uuidd.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/libuuid 02775 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Out of these the owner of the binary is a bit odd, shouldnt it be root:root?
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Ok, care to look at the results in: > > > > http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/scratch/sandeen/task_1482920/ ? > > You don't need to include COPYING in -devel, since -devel requires > e2fsprogs-libs which contains it. Oops that was an oversight ... will fix. > Otherwise it seems that all my comments have been taken into account. > > rpmlint gives now > uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd > uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd > uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd > uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd > uuidd.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/libuuid 02775 > 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. > > Out of these the owner of the binary is a bit odd, shouldnt it be root:root? Hm, there was a reason for it, I need to remember :) I'll check in as it is now (w/ the COPYING fix) and look into that last bit, I need to refresh my memory. Thanks, -Eric
ping?
Everything but the potential uuidd ownership change has been committed and I don't have more info on that at this point.
(In reply to comment #14) > Everything but the potential uuidd ownership change has been committed and I > don't have more info on that at this point. Right. Actually rpmlint output is now clean since uuid has been moved to util-linux-ng. I don't have any more comments. APPROVED
What's the status of the uuidd ownership? Still, let's close this bug.
uuidd is clearly in util-linux-ng now: # rpm -qi uuidd Name : uuidd Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.17 Vendor: Fedora Project Release : 0.1.git5e51568.fc13 Build Date: Mon 19 Oct 2009 07:56:41 AM CDT Install Date: Wed 28 Oct 2009 12:59:16 PM CDT Build Host: x86-5.fedora.phx.redhat.com Group : System Environment/Daemons Source RPM: util-linux-ng-2.17-0.1.git5e51568.fc13.src.rpm