Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/vbindiff.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/vbindiff-3.0-0.1.beta3.fc9.src.rpm Description: VBinDiff (Visual Binary Diff) displays files in hexadecimal and ASCII (or EBCDIC). It can also display two files at once, and highlight the differences between them. Unlike diff, it works well with large files (up to 4 GB). VBinDiff was inspired by the Compare Files function of the ProSel utilities by Glen Bredon, for the Apple II. The single-file mode was inspired by the LIST utility of 4DOS and friends. While less provides a good line-oriented display, it has no equivalent to LIST's hex display. (True, you can pipe the file through hexdump, but that's incredibly inefficient on multi-gigabyte files.) rebuild under mock is OK for : fedora-rawhide-i386,fedora-9-i386,fedora-8-i386,epel-4-i386,epel-5-i386 rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint vbindiff-3.0-0.1.beta3.fc9.i386.rpm vbindiff-3.0-0.1.beta3.fc9.src.rpm vbindiff-debuginfo-3.0-0.1.beta3.fc9.i386.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Hi. This is just an informal review with some comments you might find helpful. The README mentions that the license can be found in the file COPYING but that file does not exist anywhere in the extracted archive. The source files in "curses" (and equivalents under win32) do not contain any license statement within them (nor does tables.h at top level). The COPYING file (or equivalent) should also be included in %doc. It would be a good idea to push these changes upstream if possible. The license for the putty.src file (modified from terminfo/ncurses) is not GPL but probably some MIT variant, this should be correctly clarified in the License: value and ideally in the package README, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing for details - ideally this change should be pushed upstream to the original author. There is a message during creating debuginfo: cpio: vbindiff-3.0_beta3/<built-in>: No such file or directory Although it doesn't seem to break the debug package. OK Rpmlint is silent OK Spec file name. NO Licensing. NO License: field matches sw. NO License included in doc. OK Spec file in American English OK Spec file legible OK Source MD5sum: 86904b2394e56089878695415121cc28 upstream and in src.rpm OK Builds on i386 OK See no reason to exclude architecture(s) ?? All build dependencies listed (mock test ??) DIDN'T TRY A MOCK BUILD OK Locales management - this package is not localized. OK Libraries (no libraries in this package) OK Not relocateble. OK Owns it's directories. OK No %file duplicates OK File permissions OK %clean target OK Consistent macro usage OK Code/permissive content (this is just code). OK No large documentation OK Doc's don't affect runtime. OK No header files OK No static libraries OK No pkgconfig file(s) OK No libraries OK No devel package OK Not a GUI application OK Does not own other package's file/dirs. OK rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install OK Valid filenames (just ASCII) OK No scriplets OK No subpackages OK No pkgconfig files OK No file dependencies
Hi, thanks a lot for this informal review. - Licence : I've contacted upstream about the licensing blur. - cpio error : I don't have any messages about cpio (see build log in attachment). - mock : package build succesfully on mock (tried for fedora-rawhide-i386,fedora-9-i386,fedora-8-i386,epel-4-i386 and epel-5-i386) - also build on rawhide. see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=740007
Created attachment 312689 [details] build log build log
Update for 3.0 beta 4 version : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/vbindiff.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/vbindiff-3.0-0.1.beta4.fc9.src.rpm COPYING file is now included in the package (added by upstream). Source files in "curses", equivalent under win32 and table.h now contains a licence statement (added by upstream). For putty.src file, here is upstream note : As explained in the ncurses dist, there's no clear copyright on the terminfo file. I did add a note to README that putty.src is not part of VBinDiff and should be considered under the ncurses terms. Rebuild under mock still ok. rpmint output : [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint vbindiff-3.0-0.1.beta4.fc9.i386.rpm vbindiff-3.0-0.1.beta4.fc9.src.rpm vbindiff-debuginfo-3.0-0.1.beta4.fc9.i386.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$
[OK] rpmlint output:silent [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format [OK] license allowed: GPLv2+ [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: [OK] package is code or permissive content: code {N/A} patches sent to upstream and commented [OK] Source0 is a working URL {N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz <N/A> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name} [OK] Source0 matches Upstream: dbda80ef580e1a0975ef50b9aaa5210e vbindiff-3.0_beta4.tar.gz [OK] Package builds on all platforms: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=989950 [N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented: [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin [N/A] %find_lang used for locales [N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig [N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage [N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig (N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel [N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included [N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop [N/A] Follows desktop entry spec [N/A] Valid .desktop Name [N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName [N/A] Valid .desktop Categories [N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install [OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable) [OK] Owns all created directories [OK] no duplicates in %files [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8 [OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] Consistent macro usage [N/A] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime {OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) {OK} PreReq not used {OK} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured {OK} Useful debuginfo generated {OK} no duplication of system libraries {OK} no rpath {NEEDSWORK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps Consider using this to keep the timestamp of the manpage: %configure INSTALL="install -p" But imho this should be done directly in %configure, I have sent a mail about this to fedora-packaging. {OK} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} no Conflicts {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format {OK} does not use Scriptlets <N/A> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch <OK> Sane Provides: and Requires: {GOOD ENOUGH} Follows Naming Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages According to the changelog/Review ticket, this is the second prelease package with the same version. Therefore the release should be '0.2.beta4' and not '0.1.beta4'. The digit needs to be always increased to avoid possible problems with rpms version-release compare algorithm. This package is APPROVED. Please consider the extra argument to %configure before you import this package into cvs and do not forget to increase the release properly.
Hi, thank you very much for the review. I'll fix release tag and configure call before I import the package. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: vbindiff Short Description: Visual binary diff Owners: eponyme Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
Oups, I forgot EPEL 5 branche : New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: vbindiff Short Description: Visual binary diff Owners: eponyme Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC:
cvs done.
vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc10
vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc9
vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update vbindiff'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-11342
vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update vbindiff'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11408
vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
vbindiff-3.0-0.2.beta4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.