Bug 413321 (inotail) - Review Request: inotail - An inotify-enabled tail replacement
Summary: Review Request: inotail - An inotify-enabled tail replacement
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: inotail
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-12-06 02:19 UTC by Jesse Keating
Modified: 2013-01-10 02:43 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-12-15 09:11:18 UTC
Type: ---
panemade: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jesse Keating 2007-12-06 02:19:20 UTC
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.

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-06 03:01:28 UTC
do we need to care about CFLAGS here?
man page is not following upstream timestamp.


Comment 2 Jesse Keating 2007-12-06 11:58:41 UTC
(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


Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-06 12:52:58 UTC
(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.


Comment 4 Jesse Keating 2007-12-06 13:03:57 UTC
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

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2007-12-06 21:04:57 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 6 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-15 09:11:18 UTC
Package already built for requested branch. Therefore, closing this review now.

Comment 7 Moritz Barsnick 2008-01-14 09:01:00 UTC
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. :)


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