Bug 428748 - Review Request: ltspfs - LTSP filesystem
Review Request: ltspfs - LTSP filesystem
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Kevin Fenzi
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: K12LTSP
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-01-14 17:19 EST by Warren Togami
Modified: 2008-03-10 19:05 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-03-10 19:05:10 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
kevin: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Warren Togami 2008-01-14 17:19:09 EST
http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs.spec
http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs-0.4.2-0.20080114.fc8.src.rpm
Description: 
Fuse based remote filesystem for LTSP thin clients
 LtspFS is a remote filesystem consisting of two parts:
 1) A network server daemon that runs on the LTSP terminal.
 2) A FUSE module that runs in userspace on the server, that connects with
 the daemon on the client.
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-17 02:08:21 EST
A couple of things I noticed while glancing at the spec:

What's supposed to provide /usr/share/ldm?

There's no need to mark manpages as %doc; rpmbuild does that automatically.  It
doesn't hurt anything to do so, though.
Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-10 14:32:22 EDT
I'd be happy to review this. 
Look for a full review in a bit... 
Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-10 15:13:45 EDT
See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL+)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. The URL should possibly be:
https://code.launchpad.net/ltspfs

2. This is a prerelease snapshot?
Release should be:
0.0.20080114%{?dist}
instead of
0.20080114%{?dist}

See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a

3. You should include a comment on how to check out this version:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-615f6271efb394ab340a93a6cf030f2d08cf0d49

4. rpmlint says:

ltspfs.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ltspfs-0.4.2/ChangeLog

Suggest: Drop the Changelog until it has anything in it?

ltspfsd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/88-ltsp.rules

Should this be a conf(noreplace)? Or does it matter?
Comment 5 Warren Togami 2008-03-10 16:39:32 EDT
http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs.spec
http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/ltspfs-0.4.2-0.20080310.fc8.src.rpm

> 3. You should include a comment on how to check out this version:
I thought I did near the top?

> ltspfsd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/88-ltsp.rules
> Should this be a conf(noreplace)? Or does it matter?
Doesn't matter.
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-10 17:00:59 EDT
Ah, much better... that seems to address all the issues I see... 
this package is APPROVED. 
Comment 8 Warren Togami 2008-03-10 19:05:10 EDT
cvs done and built in rawhide

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