Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/autodir/autodir.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/autodir/autodir-0.99.8-2.src.rpm Description: Autodir offers a simple and effective means to create directories like home directories in a transparent manner. It relies on the autofs protocol for its operation.
Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/autodir/autodir.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/autodir/autodir-0.99.9-1.src.rpm * Wed Apr 18 2007 Matthias Saou <http://freshrpms.net/> 0.99.9-1 - Update to 0.99.9.
I'm just getting started on this, so I'm not deep into it yet. Noticed this with rpmlint: W: autodir strange-permission autogroup.init 0755 W: autodir strange-permission autohome.init 0755 These are because your *init files are mode 0755. If you change those to 0644 this will go away. It should't affect the package otherwise because you install -m 0755 during the rpm build.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: FC-6 / i386 [x] Rpmlint output: W: autodir strange-permission autogroup.init 0755 W: autodir strange-permission autohome.init 0755 [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [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. License type: GPL [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 8cc947aa7507b65bb6b8e3ee95707e29 MD5SUM upstream package: 8cc947aa7507b65bb6b8e3ee95707e29 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: Why: [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: FC-6 / i386 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [x] Package functions as described. [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. Fix file permissions on init scripts in srpm. 2. Missing Requires on initscripts 3. Missing Requires(post) /sbin/chkconfig, Requires(preun) /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service, and Requires(postun) /sbin/service 4. Please source a source0 for sourceforge like this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl?#head-27442167fe28eb345470e8db56716d62b508978c 5. You should not use %makeinstall unless you have a very good reason. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall === Final Notes === 1. Your build root is the least preferable of the three allowed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473 I usually recommend the 2nd (show above as well)
Issues : 1. The file permissions in the srpm aren't an issue as long as proper permissions are set at prep/build/install time. IMHO this is an annoying rpmlint false positive check. 2. This is the first time I read about a requirement on "initscripts" :-/ (*) 3. Good catch. Fixed. 4. Source0 updated. 5. Good catch. Fixed. Buildroot : I prefer this one. Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/autodir/autodir.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/autodir/autodir-0.99.9-2.src.rpm * Mon May 7 2007 Matthias Saou <http://freshrpms.net/> 0.99.9-2 - Add missing scriplets requirements. - Update sf.net source URL. - Switch away from %%makeinstall. (*) I don't think this should be required, as it is a basic component of the system, assumed to be available at runtime. Install and remove time is a different matter, since we really do require bits of initscripts (chkconfig, service) to have the package properly installed and erased, especially for build chroots.
(In reply to comment #4) > Issues : > 1. The file permissions in the srpm aren't an issue as long as proper > permissions are set at prep/build/install time. IMHO this is an annoying rpmlint > false positive check. Well, not a false positive, because it is accurate. Annoying, yes, if you want to have executables. There are a few reasons to want 0644 on these files: 1) you might not be the maintainer for this some time in the future and someone else might wonder why you are shipping them +x even though rpmlint is complaining 2) there really is no reason to have them +x in this package since the %prep or %build section does not run them directly. > 2. This is the first time I read about a requirement on "initscripts" :-/ (*) I asked in #fedora-devel to make sure and was told that initscripts can not be implied to be installed on the system. > Buildroot : I prefer this one. OK with me then.
Regarding 1), I had already "chmod -x"'ed the files. 2) IRC is not a place to expect "official" answers. I've gone through all of the guidelines and found no mention of an initscripts requirement. The parent directory ownership guidelines might apply here, but again, this is a special case, since no working installed system can not have initscripts, since the Linux kernel package itself requires it. See also spot's answer on this : https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-May/msg00028.html
(In reply to comment #6) > Regarding 1), I had already "chmod -x"'ed the files. I didn't have time to take a look at the latest srpm before I commented. > 2) IRC is not a place to expect "official" answers. I've gone through all of the > guidelines and found no mention of an initscripts requirement. The parent > directory ownership guidelines might apply here, but again, this is a special > case, since no working installed system can not have initscripts, since the > Linux kernel package itself requires it. See also spot's answer on this : > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-May/msg00028.html You will not find an official answer on #fedora-devel or the mailing list because there is none. I'm not going to hold up your package since this issue is not mandated either for or against by the guidelines of the FPC. Please follow the thread that you started and if strong opinions weigh in on either side, take it into consideration and make appropriate changes post-import. ================ *** APPROVED *** ================
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: autodir Short Description: Creates user directories on demand Owners: matthias Branches: devel FC-6 FC-5 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC:
actually, CVS is screwing up right now, need to try this again later
I still need to fix some build requirements for old branches, but all recent branches have now been built. Thanks for the review, Bernard!