Spec URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso.spec SRPM URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso-0.3.8-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: xorriso is a program which maps file objects from POSIX compliant filesystems into Rock Ridge enhanced ISO 9660 filesystems and allows session-wise manipulation of such filesystems. It can load the management information of existing ISO images and it writes the session results to optical media or to filesystem objects. Vice versa xorriso is able to restore file objects from ISO 9660 filesystems.
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=xorriso http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1404215 rpmlint passes.
I was planning to add RMB bindings to dolphin to extract .iso files to 'here' directory if that's possbile, but haven't looked it in detail yet. http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Creating_Konqueror_Service_Menus
f10 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1404730 f12 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1404608
Assigning.
rpmlint output: xorriso.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/xorriso.pc xorriso.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/xorriso-0.3.8/CONTRIBUTORS 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. - I have no idea why a pkgconfig file is provided, usually they're only used in development packages such as libraries. - Drop the CONTRIBUTORS file and add [ -s CONTRIBUTORS ] && exit 1 to %setup so that you will be notified if the file gains content later on. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. NEEDSWORK - Change Release: 1%{?dist} to Release: 1.%{__patchlevel}%{?dist} MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - License is GPLv2 and GPL+ and (LGPLv2+ or MIT), not GPLv2. * Most of the files are under GPLv2. * cleanup is under GPL license (GPL+) * make_isohybrid_mr is LGPLv2+ or MIT. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK - No source URL provided. Source matches upstream. MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - Time stamps are not preserved, use make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. N/A MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. NEEDSWORK - Add Requires: pkgconfig. MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK - Not all licenses are included. SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
(In reply to comment #5) > rpmlint output: > xorriso.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/xorriso.pc Removed during %install and also communicated with upstream to remove it, he agreed. > xorriso.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/xorriso-0.3.8/CONTRIBUTORS > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. > - Drop the CONTRIBUTORS file and add > [ -s CONTRIBUTORS ] && exit 1 fixed. > - Change > Release: 1%{?dist} > to Release: 1.%{__patchlevel}%{?dist} fixed. > NEEDSWORK > - License is GPLv2 and GPL+ and (LGPLv2+ or MIT), not GPLv2. > * Most of the files are under GPLv2. > * cleanup is under GPL license (GPL+) > * make_isohybrid_mr is LGPLv2+ or MIT. fixed to: GPLv2 and GPL and LGPLv2+ > - No source URL provided. Source matches upstream. fixed. > - Time stamps are not preserved, use > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" fixed. > MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. > NEEDSWORK > - Add Requires: pkgconfig. Not needed as file is removed during the install and will disappear in future releases. > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK > - Not all licenses are included. Communicated with upstream. What should i do with this, start hunting those files myself (not preferred) or wait the next release and fix the spec to include them? Spec URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso.spec SRPM URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso-0.3.8-2.pl00.fc10.src.rpm f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1408600
Added desktop menu entry for KDE RMB over file. [Desktop Entry] Type=Service ServiceTypes=KonqPopupMenu/Plugin MimeType=application/x-cd-image; Actions=xorrisoExtractHere; X-KDE-Priority=TopLevel X-KDE-StartupNotify=false [Desktop Action xorrisoExtractHere] Name=Xorriso: extract ISO-image here Name[fi]=Xorriso: Pura ISO tiedosto tähän Icon=media-optical Exec=/bin/nice -n 19 ionice -n7 -c3 xorriso -indev "%F" -osirrox on -cp_rx "*" "$(/usr/bin/dirname %F)" Spec URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso.spec SRPM URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso-0.3.8-3.pl00.fc10.src.rpm f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1408752
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > rpmlint output: > > xorriso.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/xorriso.pc > > Removed during %install and also communicated with upstream to remove it, he > agreed. OK, please add comment about this to the spec file. > > NEEDSWORK > > - License is GPLv2 and GPL+ and (LGPLv2+ or MIT), not GPLv2. > > * Most of the files are under GPLv2. > > * cleanup is under GPL license (GPL+) > > * make_isohybrid_mr is LGPLv2+ or MIT. > > fixed to: GPLv2 and GPL and LGPLv2+ You are missing the + from GPL. Please use my version.. > > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK > > - Not all licenses are included. > > Communicated with upstream. What should i do with this, start > hunting those files myself (not preferred) or wait the next > release and fix the spec to include them? Just wait until the next release. Fedora doesn't have a policy on this unlike Debian, we just don't ship the license files if they're not present upstream.
(In reply to comment #7) > Added desktop menu entry for KDE RMB over file. > > [Desktop Entry] > Type=Service > ServiceTypes=KonqPopupMenu/Plugin > MimeType=application/x-cd-image; > Actions=xorrisoExtractHere; > X-KDE-Priority=TopLevel > X-KDE-StartupNotify=false > > [Desktop Action xorrisoExtractHere] > Name=Xorriso: extract ISO-image here > Name[fi]=Xorriso: Pura ISO tiedosto tähän > Icon=media-optical > Exec=/bin/nice -n 19 ionice -n7 -c3 xorriso -indev "%F" -osirrox on -cp_rx "*" > "$(/usr/bin/dirname %F)" You need to use install the desktop file properly, see the Packaging Guidelines. Also I've never seen this type of thing used before, so I probably need to study it a bit. And a second thing: use cp -p to keep the time stamps on the files you copy.
These are service menus, not really appropriate for desktop-file-install procedures.
(In reply to comment #9) > You need to use install the desktop file properly, see the Packaging > Guidelines. Also I've never seen this type of thing used before, so I > probably need to study it a bit. I think Rex is right that this is not the regular menu entry. > And a second thing: use cp -p to keep the time stamps on the files you copy. fixed, also the GPL+ and dropped CONTRIBUTORS file completely. Probably there would be possibility to add other actions like creating an image from selected files, but it would have to default to some default name (which would cause problems if that would already exist in the given dir) or first file name with .iso extension (which lowers the collision risk, but doesn't remove it). Wouldn't be very keen to add too much of woodoo to Exec line either. Perhaps that needs more thinking and asking advice from upstream. http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso.spec http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso-0.3.8-4.pl00.fc10.src.rpm f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1408975
- Why do you rm -f CONTRIBUTORS as it isn't going anywhere...? - You need to own %{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/ and Requires: kde-filesystem for the desktop file.
rpmlint output: xorriso.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.8-4 ['0.3.8-4.pl00.fc11', '0.3.8-4.pl00'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - Add the missing patchlevel suffix to the last item in the changelog. - Also, you might want to use install -D -p -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/xorriso_servicemenu.desktop instead of mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus cp -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. ~OK - The MIT bit is still missing, but I guess that's okay. - In fact, when you think of it, the resulting license of the whole shebang is GPLv2, since it's compatible with every one of the licenses in the package, so you were right from the start :) MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK - You are missing ownership of servicemenu dir as stated in #12. MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. ??? - Must check this. MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
(In reply to comment #12) > - Why do you > rm -f CONTRIBUTORS > as it isn't going anywhere...? fixed. > - You need to own > %{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/ > and Requires: kde-filesystem for the desktop file. I'm not willing to pull desktop packages for CLI tool. That menu entry is just convenience entry. Even I would like to, why kde-filesystem? $ rpm -ql kde-filesystem|grep -c ServiceMenus;cat /etc/fedora-release 0 Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) That dir is not owned by any particular kde 'base' pkg, my installed ones: $ rpm -qf /usr/share/kde4/services/ServiceMenus kplayer-0.7.0-1.20081211cvs.fc10.x86_64 kdesvn-1.3.0-1.fc10.x86_64 kdeutils-4.2.3-1.fc10.x86_64 kdenetwork-4.2.3-1.fc10.x86_64 kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc10.x86_64 kdemultimedia-4.2.3-1.fc10.x86_64 konq-plugins-4.2.3-1.fc10.x86_64 kdebase-workspace-4.2.3-4.fc10.x86_64 last package only drops its own /usr/share/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/installfont.desktop entry there, so it falls to same category with others. http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso.spec
Well, about the directory /usr/share/kde4/services/ServiceMenus : # repoquery --repoid=koji-12 --whatprovides /usr/share/kde4/services/ServiceMenus | sort kdebase-6:4.2.90-1.fc12.i586 kdebase-workspace-0:4.2.90-2.fc12.i586 kdemultimedia-6:4.2.90-2.fc12.i586 kdenetwork-7:4.2.90-1.fc12.i586 kdesdk-0:4.2.90-1.fc12.i586 kdesvn-0:1.3.0-1.fc12.i586 kdeutils-6:4.2.90-1.fc12.i586 konq-plugins-0:4.2.2-1.fc11.i586 I think kde-filesystem should own this directory and these other packages should not own it. I will ask kde people about how they think of this.
(In reply to comment #14) > - You need to own > > %{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/ > > and Requires: kde-filesystem for the desktop file. > > I'm not willing to pull desktop packages for CLI tool. > That menu entry is just convenience entry. Even I would > like to, why kde-filesystem? kde-filesystem is NOT a desktop package. $ rpm -qi kde-filesystem|grep Size Size : 3551 License: Public Domain $ rpm -qR kde-filesystem config(kde-filesystem) = 4-25.fc11 filesystem rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
At least kdesdk doesn't use any desktop installs, so I guess the desktop file is OK.
Dir ownership issue is now solved. http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso.spec
Hmm, I don't see the desktop file in the %files section. Did you try building the new spec file..? Also I think you miscopied the install part: install -D -p -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/xorriso_servicemenu.desktop You have to specify the name of the file in the destination, now it installs the desktop file as the file %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/kde4/services/ServiceMenus.
(In reply to comment #19) > Hmm, I don't see the desktop file in the %files section. Did you try building > the new spec file..? Forgot to copy new file into tuju.fi, reload please.
Please build srpms too, as not having them makes having a clean review system a PITA. Also, you are still missing the latter part of the install command as I said in #19, currently the build fails in RPM build errors: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/xorriso-0.3.8-5.pl00.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/xorriso_servicemenu.desktop
ping?
(In reply to comment #21) > RPM build errors: > File not found: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/xorriso-0.3.8-5.pl00.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/kde4/services/ServiceMenus/xorriso_servicemenu.desktop fixed. Spec URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso.spec SRPM URL: http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc10.src.rpm f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1455129 f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1455136
Ok, seems fine. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xorriso Short Description: ISO 9660 image manipulation tool Owners: tuju Branches: f10 f11 EL4 EL5 InitialCC:
cvs done.
xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc10
xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc11
xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 xorriso'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7427
xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.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 xorriso'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7433
xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
xorriso-0.3.8-6.pl00.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.