Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: f3 - Utility to test for fake flash drives and cards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Summary: Review Request: f3 - Utility to test for fake flash drives and cards Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: eric@brouhaha.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/f3/f3.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/f3/f3-2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: F3 is a utility to test for fake flash drives and cards. It is a Free Software alternative to h2testw. f3write will fill the unused part of a filesystem with files NNNN.fff with known content, and f3read will analyze the files to determine whether the contents are corrupted, as happens with fake flash.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2012-04-27 17:49:24 EDT --- I think the group you picked is wrong: Development/Languages.
You can drop "-n %{name}-%{version}", because it's the default.
I'm not sure, whether "analyze the files to determine whether the contents are corrupted, as happens with fake flash." is perfectly fine English, but I'm no native speaker.
Rpmlint also complain about "filesystem", which is probably fine as well.
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint f3-2-1.fc18.src.rpm
f3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint f3-debuginfo-2-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint f3-2-1.fc18.i686.rpm
f3.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically f3.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f3read f3.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f3write 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
There's the README, so you're not left out in the cold.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /media/speicher1/makerpm/816071/f3v2.zip : MD5SUM this package : e1e196895c424b7aae15bdf67cfea862 MD5SUM upstream package : e1e196895c424b7aae15bdf67cfea862
[!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
See above. Let's just clarify whether it's fine.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
Haven't tried
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(eric@brouhaha.com | |)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(eric@brouhaha.com | |) |
--- Comment #2 from Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/f3/f3.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/f3/f3-2-2.fc16.src.rpm Koji scratch build for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4189363
Updated per review comments. I believe the English grammar and usage is correct; as you point out, "filesystem" is domain-specific jargon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |volker27@gmx.at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Two native speakers confirmed your view.
==APPROVED==
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: f3 Short Description: Utility to test for fake flash drives and cards Owners: brouhaha Branches: f17 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- f3-2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/f3-2-2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- f3-2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/f3-2-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- f3-2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-08-18 20:28:59
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- f3-2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816071
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- f3-2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla