Spec URL: http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar.spec SRPM URL: http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar-1.10.9-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Bar is a simple tool to process a stream of data and print a display for the user on stderr showing (a) the amount of data passed, (b) the throughput of the data transfer, and, if the total size of the data stream is known, (c) estimated time remaining, percent complete, and a progress bar. Bar was originally written for the purpose of estimating the amount of time needed to transfer large amounts (many, many gigabytes) of data across a network. (Usually in an SSH/tar pipe.) NOTES: 1) I named the package 'clpbar' because that's the name of the SourceForge project and the name of the package in Debian. However, the actual command installed is /usr/bin/bar and the manpage is bar(1). 2) I added a %check section to the spec file even though the packaging guidelines don't say anything about that.
Not reviewing yet, but is it really a good idea for this package to use such a generic name like /usr/bin/bar?
repoquery shows that nothing else in Fedora in is providing /usr/bin/bar, so I'm not sure what we'd be saving that name for. Also, given that this is a command line utility, given it a more complex name makes it more difficult to use at the command line.
What's next, a package that provides /usr/bin/foo? :D But really, the name of the project is a bit.. general.
Well, the name of the project is clpbar ("Command Line Progress Bar"). At least /usr/bin/clpbar would be a little bit less generic. > I'm not sure what we'd be saving that name for. Why would we want to occupy the name for this tool? $ bar ============================================================ $ > Also, given that this is a command line utility, given > it a more complex name makes it more difficult to > use at the command line. alias clpbar=/usr/bin/command-line-progress-bar alias bar=command-line-progress-bar alias di=debuginfo-install ;)
(In reply to comment #4) > Well, the name of the project is clpbar ("Command Line Progress Bar"). > At least /usr/bin/clpbar would be a little bit less generic. > > > > I'm not sure what we'd be saving that name for. > > Why would we want to occupy the name for this tool? > > $ bar > ============================================================ > $ > > > Also, given that this is a command line utility, given > > it a more complex name makes it more difficult to > > use at the command line. > > alias clpbar=/usr/bin/command-line-progress-bar > alias bar=command-line-progress-bar > alias di=debuginfo-install > > ;) So why not install all of the GNU coreutils with program prefix of 'g' or better yet 'gnu-coreutils-' and require people to select the commands they want via shell aliases? I mean, at some point in time someone might want to port the BSD ls command to Fedora and then we'd have a difficult time naming commands. I'm not trying to defend the name 'bar' for this command. To me, we should install programs as named by the authors unless they conflict with something else already part of the system. Reserving command names for possible future use seems a bit subjective and pointless. That said, I'll work up a change to this package and repost because I really don't care what the name is so long as the package can enter Fedora and I don't need to keep carrying it along on the side.
New SRPM and spec file posted: http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar.spec http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar-1.10.9-2.fc12.src.rpm
Review [+] rpmlint messages can be ignored. rakesh@simu SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/clpbar-1.10.9-2.fc12.src.rpm clpbar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stderr -> std err, std-err, stander clpbar.src: E: no-spec-file 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ rpmlint -i /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/clpbar-1.10.9-2.fc12.src.rpm clpbar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stderr -> std err, std-err, stander The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. clpbar.src: E: no-spec-file No spec file was specified in your RPM building. Please specify a valid SPEC file to build a valid RPM package. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [+] Spec name ok [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ rpmls /home/rakesh/clpbar-1.10.9-2.fc12.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- bar-1.10.9-clpbar.patch -rw-rw-r-- bar_1.10.9.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- clpbar.1.in -rw-rw-r-- clpbar.spec [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/clpbar-1.10.9-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm clpbar.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stderr -> std err, std-err, stander 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/clpbar-debuginfo-1.10.9-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm clpbar-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [-] Debuginfo empty [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ rpmls /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/clpbar-debuginfo-1.10.9-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ du -sh /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/clpbar-debuginfo-1.10.9-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm 4.0K /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/clpbar-debuginfo-1.10.9-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm [rakesh@simu SPECS]$ [+] Build - ok http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2189136 [+] source ok from srpm (sha1sum) [rakesh@simu ~]$ sha1sum bar_1.10.9.tar.gz 324d5e199f07e8d299253a8748a5aec9a6381315 bar_1.10.9.tar.gz [rakesh@simu ~]$ sha1sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/bar_1.10.9.tar.gz 324d5e199f07e8d299253a8748a5aec9a6381315 rpmbuild/SOURCES/bar_1.10.9.tar.gz [+] name fine [+] URL fine [+] license ok (copy present) and source has marking [+] source tree ok (no binaries present) [+] archs - fine [+] spec file legible and in american english [+] BR's ok [+] %files ok [+] folders owned - ok /usr/share/doc/clpbar-1.10.9 [+] %clean section ok [+] filenames - ok (valid) [+] checks included - ok Summary: Fix the empty debuginfo generated ? Thanks,
Also, source code does not include license blocks on top and COPYING file mentions GPLv2 license. May you confirm with upstream about license bits and request them to include it into code if possible ? Thanks,
> Fix the empty debuginfo generated ? That's because the package doesn't use our global %optflags and additionally adds -s to strip the programs. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
The upstream for clpbar seems long dead, the latest version came out 3 years ago and the CVS is empty. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/clpbar/files/ Have you ever send bar-1.10.9-clpbar.patch to upstream, this patch is not a fedora specific patch.
New SRPM and spec posted: http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar.spec http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar-1.10.9-2.fc12.src.rpm Issues addressed: 1) The debuginfo package contains debug information now (removed the LDFLAGS override). 2) The Makefile does not override the RPM opt flags. Answers to other questions or statements made: 1) "The upstream for clpbar seems long dead, the latest version came out 3 years ago and the CVS is empty." This is true. I'm not sure the author ever used the SourceForge CVS service. He may just have uploaded tarballs for release. I emailed him for clarification. It is also true that there have been no releases in 3 years, but that does not mean the project is dead or not useful. procps often goes years between actual releases. 2) "Have you ever send bar-1.10.9-clpbar.patch to upstream, this patch is not a fedora specific patch." I have not and would prefer not to. The patch itself just changes the source to install the application as 'clpbar' instead of 'bar' (and man page as 'clpbar.1' instead of 'bar.1'), so in that respect I would consider it Fedora-specific. However, he does carry Debian-specific packaging information in the upstream source, so I will ask if he is interested in our packaging changes. 2) "Also, source code does not include license blocks on top and COPYING file mentions GPLv2 license. May you confirm with upstream about license bits and request them to include it into code if possible ?" The COPYING file is actually the LGPL version 2, not the GPL version 2. It is true that his source files do not have any license boilerplate. I asked the author for clarification on the issue. My reason for considering the entire package LGPLv2 is the fact that the COPYING file is included in the source and the debian/copyright file in the source tree confirms this. The package is or was included with Debian at some point, but I do not know how to check if it is still part of Debian or not. Thanks for the review feedback.
Correction: http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar.spec http://dcantrel.fedorapeople.org/clpbar/clpbar-1.10.9-3.fc12.src.rpm
I emailed the author today and here's his reply: > David Cantrell wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >>. >> Michael, >>. >> I would like to package up clpbar for inclusion in Fedora Linux. > > Cool! > >> Looking at >> the sourceforge download page for the project, the latest version appears. >> to be 1.10.9. If I am looking in the wrong location for project source, let. >> me know. > > You got it. > >> Some other questions: >>. >> 1) The COPYING file indicates the GNU LGPL version 2 or any later version, >> however none of the source files include the LGPL license boilerplate. In >> fact, there's no boilerplate text in the files. Does the LGPL license. >> cover the entire project? > > It covers the entire project, yes. > >> 2) Is there are an upstream source repository? The CVS repository on the >> sourceforge project page is empty. > > I don't have a repository, but I've kept the download page up-to-date. > (Bar is pretty stable now and nothing has changed for nearly a year.) > > Michael So, he confirmed that LGPLv2 covers the entire project and that he does not use version control, but just makes releases.
Any updates on this review?
Sorry for delay in replying .. was bit unwell. I APPROVE your package. Thanks,
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: clpbar Short Description: Show information about a data transfer Owners: dcantrel Branches: F-13 EL-6 InitialCC:
CVS Done