Bug 765652 - Review Request: bvi - Display-oriented editor for binary files
Summary: Review Request: bvi - Display-oriented editor for binary files
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mohamed El Morabity
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-12-09 03:09 UTC by Matthieu Saulnier
Modified: 2012-01-24 17:39 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: bvi-1.3.2-6.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-01-19 21:57:15 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
pikachu.2014: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Disable binary stripping (629 bytes, patch)
2011-12-09 11:45 UTC, Mohamed El Morabity
no flags Details | Diff
Install help file in %{_datadir}, to comply with the FHS (1.69 KB, patch)
2011-12-09 11:48 UTC, Mohamed El Morabity
no flags Details | Diff

Description Matthieu Saulnier 2011-12-09 03:09:48 UTC
Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description:
The bvi is a display-oriented editor for binary files, based
on the vi text-editor. If you are familiar with vi, just start
the editor and begin to edit! A bmore program is also
included in the package.

Hello, I'm submiting this new package.
Have a nice day.

Comment 1 Mohamed El Morabity 2011-12-09 06:28:11 UTC
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/bvi-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
bvi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
>Don't submit packages without any unjustified rpmlint error.

bmore.help is not a documentation file, it contains the help summary for bmore, displayed using the 'h' key. As a result, this file can't be considered to be as an optional one, you can't move it where you want without any consequence.
Please explain *why* you want to move this file elsewhere.

Comment 2 Matthieu Saulnier 2011-12-09 09:55:23 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/bvi-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
> bvi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
> >Don't submit packages without any unjustified rpmlint error.
Okay, so I can't fix it now, I've contacted the developper about this error.

> bmore.help is not a documentation file, it contains the help summary for bmore,
> displayed using the 'h' key. As a result, this file can't be considered to be
> as an optional one, you can't move it where you want without any consequence.
> Please explain *why* you want to move this file elsewhere.
I fixed an other rpmlint warning by this way, but I didn't seen help function was broken.

$ rpmlint *.rpm
bvi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmore -> bore, more, b more
bvi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro `''' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning: macro `--' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `M"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `S"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `N"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `T"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `L'' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `R'' not defined
bvi.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/bvi-1.3.2/COPYING
bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bview
bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvedit
bvi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.

>bvi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
That was the rpmlint warning I tryed to fix by moving the help file.
It is currently located here:
-rw-r--r--  /usr/lib64/bmore.help
I don't know how to move it without break help function.

Latest release:
Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-2.fc16.src.rpm

Comment 3 Mohamed El Morabity 2011-12-09 11:45:50 UTC
Created attachment 544493 [details]
Disable binary stripping

Comment 4 Mohamed El Morabity 2011-12-09 11:48:14 UTC
Created attachment 544497 [details]
Install help file in %{_datadir}, to comply with the FHS

Comment 5 Mohamed El Morabity 2011-12-09 11:49:19 UTC
I've just attached two patch:
- the first one to solve the debuginfo issue;
- the second one to install the help file in %{_datadir}/%{name}, to comply with the FHS.

Comment 6 Matthieu Saulnier 2011-12-11 04:09:05 UTC
Hello,
thanks a lot for these patchs.

So, this is the latest release:
Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-3.fc16.src.rpm

$ rpmlint *.rpm
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro `''' not defined
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning: macro `--' not defined
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `M"' not defined
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `S"' not defined
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `N"' not defined
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `T"' not defined
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `L'' not defined
bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `R'' not defined
bvi.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/bvi-1.3.2/COPYING
bvi.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bview
bvi.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvedit
bvi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmore -> bore, more, b more
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.

Comment 7 Mohamed El Morabity 2011-12-16 12:07:17 UTC
Don't forget to comment the patches. This will help you foremost to maintain this package.

(In reply to comment #6)
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro
> `''' not defined
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning:
> macro `--' not defined
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning:
> macro `M"' not defined
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning:
> macro `S"' not defined
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning:
> macro `N"' not defined
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning:
> macro `T"' not defined
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning:
> macro `L'' not defined
> bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning:
> macro `R'' not defined
I don't know if it is really relevant. The impacted man pages seems to be correctly displayed. I think you could ignore these warnings finally.
Anyway, don't forget to fix the bmore.1 file: the path of the bmore.help file specified in this man page is bad (/usr/local/share/bmore.help).

Comment 8 Matthieu Saulnier 2011-12-21 14:35:47 UTC
Hello,
this is the latest release:
Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-4.fc16.src.rpm

Comment 9 Mohamed El Morabity 2011-12-21 15:09:59 UTC
About the patches:
   # Fix empty debuginfo package :
   Patch0:         %{name}-%{version}-no_strip.patch
   # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help :
   Patch1:         %{name}-%{version}-fix_help_install.patch
You shoudn't use the version macro in patches, otherwise you'll have to rename them each time bvi is updated. Just set the version explicetely, it's also a way to keep an history of the included patches:
   # Fix empty debuginfo package :
   Patch0:         %{name}-1.3.2-no_strip.patch
   # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help :
   Patch1:         %{name}-1.3.2-fix_help_install.patch

Instead of using sed to fix the help file path in the man page, you'd better merge this fix in the bvi-1.4.2-fix_help_install.patch file.
By the way, just for information, you can use a different separator (| or @, for example) in sed, instead of escaping slashes:
   sed -i "s|/usr/local/share/bmore.help|/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help|" bmore.1
   sed -i "s@/usr/local/share/bmore.help@/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help@" bmore.1

Comment 10 Matthieu Saulnier 2011-12-24 04:22:19 UTC
Hello

(In reply to comment #9)
> About the patches:
>    # Fix empty debuginfo package :
>    Patch0:         %{name}-%{version}-no_strip.patch
>    # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help :
>    Patch1:         %{name}-%{version}-fix_help_install.patch
> You shoudn't use the version macro in patches, otherwise you'll have to rename
> them each time bvi is updated. Just set the version explicetely, it's also a
> way to keep an history of the included patches:
>    # Fix empty debuginfo package :
>    Patch0:         %{name}-1.3.2-no_strip.patch
>    # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help :
>    Patch1:         %{name}-1.3.2-fix_help_install.patch
Done

> Instead of using sed to fix the help file path in the man page, you'd better
> merge this fix in the bvi-1.4.2-fix_help_install.patch file.
> By the way, just for information, you can use a different separator (| or @,
> for example) in sed, instead of escaping slashes:
>    sed -i "s|/usr/local/share/bmore.help|/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help|" bmore.1
>    sed -i "s@/usr/local/share/bmore.help@/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help@" bmore.1
Okay, but I don't know how to specify an other file to merge this fix in the same patch file... so I've fixed the sed statement.

Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-5.fc16.src.rpm

Comment 11 Mohamed El Morabity 2012-01-03 11:26:05 UTC
Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
bvi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmore -> bore, more, b more
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro `''' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning: macro `--' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `M"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `S"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `N"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `T"' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `L'' not defined
bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `R'' not defined
bvi.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/bvi-1.3.2/COPYING
bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bview
bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvedit
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
>>The warnings can be safely ignored

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}

[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.

[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
>>>All the sources files specify in their header comment a GPLv2 or more license.

[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
>>MD5 sum=4257305ffb27177a6d5208b2df4ca92d OK

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.

[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.

[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.

[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.

[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.

[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.

[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.

[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.

[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.

[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.

[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 

[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.

[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.

[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Once the License tag fixed to "GPLv2+", I will approve your package.

Comment 12 Matthieu Saulnier 2012-01-07 13:19:42 UTC
Hello,
this is the latest release:
Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec
SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16.src.rpm

Comment 13 Mohamed El Morabity 2012-01-07 13:32:13 UTC
APPROVED.

Comment 14 Matthieu Saulnier 2012-01-07 15:50:25 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: bvi
Short Description: Display-oriented editor for binary files
Owners: fantom
Branches: f15 f16 el6
InitialCC:

Comment 15 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-01-07 16:18:22 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2012-01-07 18:29:50 UTC
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2012-01-07 18:31:37 UTC
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bvi-1.3.2-6.fc15

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2012-01-07 18:37:13 UTC
bvi-1.3.2-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bvi-1.3.2-6.el6

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2012-01-07 20:37:43 UTC
bvi-1.3.2-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2012-01-19 21:57:15 UTC
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2012-01-19 22:00:43 UTC
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2012-01-24 17:39:50 UTC
bvi-1.3.2-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.


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