Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/jmtpfs.spec SRPM URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: FUSE and libmtp based file system for accessing MTP (Media Transfer Protocol) devices. It was specifically designed for exchanging files between Linux (and Mac OS X) systems and newer Android devices that support MTP but not USB Mass Storage. Fedora Account System Username: siddharths
Tested on F17. Thanks for this!
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. GPLv3 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rberry/review-jmtpfs/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) These should be removed unless building for epel is intended. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. GPLv3 COPYING file included. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (getuid-not-defined.patch) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm jmtpfs.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium jmtpfs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> Librium jmtpfs.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1 ['0.4-1.fc16', '0.4-1'] jmtpfs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmtpfs jmtpfs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium jmtpfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> Librium 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Spelling warnings can be safely ignored. Version in changelog must be fixed. '0.4-1' Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jmtpfs-debuginfo jmtpfs jmtpfs-debuginfo.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jmtpfs.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1 ['0.4-1.fc16', '0.4-1'] jmtpfs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmtpfs 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fuse libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libfuse.so.2 libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.5) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.8) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libmagic.so.1 libmtp.so.9 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libusb-1.0.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm: jmtpfs = 0.4-1.fc16 jmtpfs(x86-32) = 0.4-1.fc16 jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm: jmtpfs-debuginfo = 0.4-1.fc16 jmtpfs-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.4-1.fc16 MD5-sum check ------------- http://research.jacquette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jmtpfs-0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a7913c1c2fa4899b55db52bee4fc6c38d31e0935aab9e0bfa2ff56388e5bf014 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a7913c1c2fa4899b55db52bee4fc6c38d31e0935aab9e0bfa2ff56388e5bf014 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-16-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339
(In reply to comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > [x] = Pass > [!] = Fail > [-] = Not applicable > [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > > Generic: > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > > GPLv3 > > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one > supported primary architecture. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [x]: 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 is included in %doc. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "*No copyright* GPL (v3)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/rberry/review-jmtpfs/licensecheck.txt > [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. > Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) > [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: Package installs properly. > [x]: Package is not relocatable. > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x]: CheckResultdir > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 files. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [!]: Buildroot is not present > Note: Invalid buildroot found: BuildRoot: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > > These should be removed unless building for epel is intended. > > [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > GPLv3 COPYING file included. > > [x]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q > --requires). > [?]: Package functions as described. > [?]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Patch0 (getuid-not-defined.patch) > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm > jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm > jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm > jmtpfs.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium > jmtpfs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> Librium > jmtpfs.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1 ['0.4-1.fc16', '0.4-1'] > jmtpfs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmtpfs > jmtpfs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium > jmtpfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> Librium > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > > Spelling warnings can be safely ignored. Version in changelog must be fixed. > '0.4-1' > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint jmtpfs-debuginfo jmtpfs > jmtpfs-debuginfo.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US > jmtpfs.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1 ['0.4-1.fc16', '0.4-1'] > jmtpfs.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmtpfs > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > fuse > libc.so.6 > libdl.so.2 > libfuse.so.2 > libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.5) > libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6) > libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.8) > libgcc_s.so.1 > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) > libm.so.6 > libmagic.so.1 > libmtp.so.9 > libpthread.so.0 > librt.so.1 > libstdc++.so.6 > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) > libusb-1.0.so.0 > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > > Provides > -------- > jmtpfs-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm: > > jmtpfs = 0.4-1.fc16 > jmtpfs(x86-32) = 0.4-1.fc16 > > jmtpfs-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc16.i686.rpm: > > jmtpfs-debuginfo = 0.4-1.fc16 > jmtpfs-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.4-1.fc16 > > > > MD5-sum check > ------------- > http://research.jacquette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jmtpfs-0.4.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a7913c1c2fa4899b55db52bee4fc6c38d31e0935aab9e0bfa2ff56388e5bf014 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > a7913c1c2fa4899b55db52bee4fc6c38d31e0935aab9e0bfa2ff56388e5bf014 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 > Buildroot used: fedora-16-i386 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339 Rebuilt SPEC: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/jmtpfs.spec SRPM : http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jmtpfs-0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm
I am in no plan to maintain or go ahead with this, hence closing this bug now. If any one interested feel free to ship it.
In case somebody is still interested, I am following up this in bug #1294577