Spec URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/inotail.spec SRPM URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/inotail-0.5-2.src.rpm Description: inotail is a replacement for the 'tail' program found in the base installation of every Linux/UNIX system. It makes use of the inotify infrastructure in recent versions of the Linux kernel to speed up tailing files in the follow mode (the '-f' option). Standard tail polls the file every second by default while inotail listens to special events sent by the kernel through the inotify API to determine whether a file needs to be reread.
do we need to care about CFLAGS here? man page is not following upstream timestamp.
(In reply to comment #1) > do we need to care about CFLAGS here? Oops, forgot that. > man page is not following upstream timestamp. > Not sure what you mean by this. The man page is part of the archive, rpmbuild gzips it during install. http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/inotail.spec http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/inotail-0.5-3.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > do we need to care about CFLAGS here? > > Oops, forgot that. > > > man page is not following upstream timestamp. > > > > Not sure what you mean by this. The man page is part of the archive, rpmbuild > gzips it during install. > I guess its not needed( only for copying commands in SPEC) as per said in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-0239576e441f9ef53d175c4aec8c12868dffb5ab I see no issues with new SPEC. rpmlint is clean source matched upstream 82d4d05f86d6069e95c4b73e4004f15f inotail-0.5.tar.bz2 Packaging look good. APPORVED. Also, You may like to add disttag.
oh yeah, the dist tag wasn't on the source of the spec, I added it. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: inotail Short Description: An inotify-enabled tail replacement Owners: jkeating Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Package already built for requested branch. Therefore, closing this review now.
Can I re-open or append for improval? (If not, I'll file a new ticket.) The SPEC file has such a line in the %install section: chmod 0755 %{buildroot}/usr/bin/inotail a) Permissions can (or should?) be forced in the %files section using %attr. b) %{buildroot}/usr/bin must comply with the %files's %{_bindir}. One of the two is wrong. Assuming this tool has a very hand-crafted Makefile, and it is built using "prefix=%{buildroot}/usr", "/usr/bin" may (or may not) be the correct choice. Thanks for the tool, by the way. :)