Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/btrfs-progs.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/btrfs-progs-0.15-3.fc8.src.rpm Description: The btrfs-progs package provides all the userpsace programs needed to create, check, modify and correct any inconsistencies in the btrfs filesystem.
This seems somewhat early, considering there's no kernel support (and the on-disk format isn't even stabilized yet....) How does having this in now help?
Just helps me stay ahead of the game, when it does hit mainline I'm going to have a bunch of other crap to do, so I'd like to go ahead and get this into fedora now to cut down on the amount of work I have to do later on.
I'll go ahead and review this, but I can't test it at all so I'm asking some of the kernel folks if they'll sign off on it. Full review forthcoming....
The only question I have involves the compiler flags; assuming x86_64, this package uses: -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Werror -Os whereas the defaults are -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic I've no particular issues with -Os versus -O2, but my understanding is that -fstack-protector is of some importance, at least. Any reason not to use our default compiler flags, perhaps with s/-O2/-Os/? * source files match upstream: ca261e50a5a66f7169b60d7bb5b9835e6284f4fa81d58e17d942fd3b4934618a btrfs-progs-0.15.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. ? Not sure about compiler flags: -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Werror -Os * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: btrfs-progs = 0.15-3.fc10 = libuuid.so.1()(64bit) * %check is present; no test suite upstream. I cannot test this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files.
i can change the cflags in the spec file for now if you like, the flags that are used are just what chris happened to pick when he wrote the makefile :). I'll probably send something up to add -fstack-protector and -fexceptions.
It would probably be best to pass CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" into the makefile, or to tweak that for -Os if you prefer. That way if we need to mess with the flags for whatever reason the package just needs a rebuild.
K updated the package http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/btrfs-progs.spec http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/btrfs-progs-0.15-4.fc8.src.rpm
This looks fine to me. I guess there's little hope of getting any of the kernel folks to chime in here, and I can't really see any reason to hold this up because I can at least run the tools, I just can't mount any filesystems. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: btrfs-progs Short Description: Userspace programs for btrfs Owners: josef Branches: F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
This was built and is in rawhide currently; any reason not to close this ticket?