SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/mock-results/fusecompress-1.99.14-1.fc8.x86_64/fusecompress-1.99.14-1.fc8.src.rpm SPEC: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SPECS/fusecompress.spec mock: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/mock-results/fusecompress-1.99.14-1.fc8.x86_64/ Description: FUSE based compressed filesystem implementation FuseCompress provides a mountable Linux filesystem which transparently compresses its content. Files stored in this filesystem are compressed on the fly and Fuse allows to create a transparent interface between compressed files and user applications.
Note that this is ugly and I need some serious assistannce; The package includes a mount.fusecompress wrapper which looks as follows, to enable me to be able to place the filesystem in fstab and add options there: IFS=, for i in $4 do if [ ! "$i" = "rw" ] then echo $i fi done |xargs /usr/bin/fusecompress $1 $2 Obviously rw is not the only possible option not understandable by fusecompress. I guess there should be no such script, I am just not aware how to do that, and thus I would be very thankful if someone with previous experience with fuse had a short look at this and kicked me in the right direction. Thanks!
I'll review it.
REVIEW: MUST Items: + rpmlint silent. + The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package included in %doc. + The spec file written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum fusecompress-1.99.14.tar.gz* a1342b263ae1d115af5c11568bdedd72 fusecompress-1.99.14.tar.gz a1342b263ae1d115af5c11568bdedd72 fusecompress-1.99.14.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiled and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + All build dependencies listed in BuildRequires. + A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %$RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + The package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + All files, a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: + Works for me. As to /usr/sbin/mount.fusecompress - I don't think this is an issue since we may easily use this package w/o it completely. So if someone will find some bugs related to this script he should fill a bug. So it's APPROVED.
Ok, so I'll improve without the script for now. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: fusecompress Short Description: FUSE based compressed file system implementation Owners: lkundrak Branches: EL-5 Cvsextras Commits: yes
Hum. Should this be named 'fuse-fusecompress' or 'fuse-compress' ? Almost all the other fuse packages are 'fuse-%{name}'. Also, further note that EL5 kernels have NO fuse support. ;(
Kevin: Is there a guideline about naming fuse modules? I'd prefer sticking with the upstream name, unless there's one. fuse-fusecompres doesn't sound like the name an average user would expect this package to be named. And, right, no fuse in RHEL-5; I did not realize that I got that thingie from atrpms. Please, just create the devel branch.
Well, you could always Provides: fusecompress, but in any case there isn't any guideline on fuse names that I know of. One other fuse package doesn't use the 'fuse-' prefix either. cvs done.
For me using such prefixes looks very ugly solution. Instead of extending list of available groups in /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.4.2.2/GROUPS we add stupid fuse- erlang- python- and other prefixes. Another one restriction is that we use only one group instead of list.
Thanks Peter, thanks Kevin. Imported and built.