[Bug 491875] New: Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491875

Summary: Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora
    Target Release: ---

Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo.spec
SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo-4.4-1.src.rpm
Description:

'unzoo' is a zoo archive extractor.  A zoo archive is a file that
contains several files, called its members, usually in compressed form
to save space.  'unzoo' can list all or selected members or extract
all or selected members, i.e., uncompress them and write them to
files.  It cannot add new members or delete members.  For this you
need the zoo archiver, called 'zoo', written by Rahul Dhesi.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #1 from John W. Linville   2009-03-24 10:19:09 EDT ---
I chose package unzoo because the zoo archiver mentioned above is released
under a restrictive license...

Should I be using %{?dist} as part of the Release line in the .spec file?

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

Jussi Lehtola  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-24 17:48:46 EDT ---
Taking on review.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-24 18:00:53 EDT ---
- optflags are not used. Use
gcc %{optflags} -o unzoo -DSYS_IS_UNIX -O unzoo.c
in the build phase.

- Move rm -rf %{buildroot} to the top of the install phase.

- Drop the creation of the dir and just use
install -Dpm 755 unzoo %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/unzoo
as this will do the creation for you.

- Shipping source code as documentation is silly, please drop it. I see that
there is some documentation in the beginning of the source file, please extract
it to a text file (remove the unnecessary *'s and so on), ship it as Source1
and put it into %doc.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-24 18:01:28 EDT ---
And yes: you should use %{?dist} in the Release line.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka   2009-03-25 01:33:48 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> optflags are not used. Use
>
> gcc %{optflags} -o unzoo -DSYS_IS_UNIX -O unzoo.c
> in the build phase.

One comment:
"-O" overwrites "-O2" optimization level used in %optflags,
so when using %optflags "-O" argument should be removed.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-25 03:15:48 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > optflags are not used. Use
> >
> > gcc %{optflags} -o unzoo -DSYS_IS_UNIX -O unzoo.c
> > in the build phase.
>
> One comment:
> "-O" overwrites "-O2" optimization level used in %optflags,
> so when using %optflags "-O" argument should be removed.

Right you are: only the value of the last argument is used. Thanks.

John: Please remove the -O flag, since %{optflags} already contain the
necessary optimizations.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #7 from John W. Linville   2009-03-25 10:25:17 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo.spec
SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo-4.4-2.fc10.src.rpm

- Use 'gcc %{optflags}' for compile
- Remove '-O' from compile command
- Compile %{SOURCE0} to avoid unnecessary copy operation during prep phase
- Move rm -rf %{buildroot} to the top of the install phase
- Generate unzoo.txt from unzoo.c during prep phase and change %doc line to
match
- Use install -Dpm 755 unzoo %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/unzoo
- Add %{?dist} to the Release line

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-25 14:39:23 EDT ---
Review:

rpmlint output:
unzoo.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 25)
unzoo.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
unzoo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
unzoo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/unzoo
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

MUST:
 - Add versions to changelog.
 - Get rpmbuild to strib binary and build debuginfo package. I have no idea why
it isn't doing that at the moment...

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. ~OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

John W. Linville  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki
                   |                            |.fi)

--- Comment #9 from John W. Linville   2009-03-26 12:56:03 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo.spec
SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo-4.4-3.fc10.src.rpm

* Thu Mar 26 2009 John W. Linville  - 4.4-3.fc10
- Use setup macro in prep phase (cleaner spec, generates debuginfo)
- Add release info in changelog

rpmlint output:
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

I was doing some setup manually, since a bare %setup doesn't grok a single .c
file.  Digging-up the right options for %setup not only cleans-up the .spec
file but also generates the debuginfo package. :-)

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

Jussi Lehtola  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki |
                   |.fi)                        |

--- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-26 13:19:15 EDT ---
rpmlint output is now clean, however the debuginfo package is not complete: the
source code is missing from it.

Copy the source file to the build directory, then the source code is included
in debuginfo. Your setup and build phases should like the following:

%setup -Tc -n %{name}-%{version}
cp -a %{SOURCE0} .
cat unzoo.c | sed -e '/SYNTAX/,/*//!d' | cut -c5- > unzoo.txt

%build
gcc %{optflags} -o unzoo -DSYS_IS_UNIX unzoo.c

PS. Don't put the dist tag in the changelog, since you can use the same spec to
build on any Fedora/RHEL release.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

John W. Linville  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki
                   |                            |.fi)

--- Comment #11 from John W. Linville   2009-03-26 21:52:50 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo.spec
SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo-4.4-4.fc10.src.rpm

* Thu Mar 26 2009 John W. Linville  - 4.4-4
- Copy source to build directory so it is included in debuginfo

rpm2cpio ../RPMS/x86_64/unzoo-debuginfo-4.4-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm | cpio -idt
./usr/lib/debug
./usr/lib/debug/.build-id
./usr/lib/debug/.build-id/73
./usr/lib/debug/.build-id/73/6e399c036b54a296e1fd08e41012249eeb9053
./usr/lib/debug/.build-id/73/6e399c036b54a296e1fd08e41012249eeb9053.debug
./usr/lib/debug/usr
./usr/lib/debug/usr/bin
./usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/unzoo.debug
./usr/src/debug/unzoo-4.4
./usr/src/debug/unzoo-4.4/unzoo.c
311 blocks

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

Jussi Lehtola  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?,             |fedora-review+
                   |needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki |
                   |.fi)                        |

--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola   2009-03-27 03:13:53 EDT ---
No need to tag NEEDINFO every time you update the spec :)

OK, now the package looks better. btw, you can see the file list simply by
using rpm -qpl, no need for rpm2cpio...

The package adheres to the guidelines and is thus

APPROVED.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

John W. Linville  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #13 from John W. Linville   2009-03-31 14:03:00 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: unzoo
Short Description: ZOO archive extractor
Owners: linville
Branches: F-10
InitialCC: linville

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

Dennis Gilmore  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

--- Comment #14 from Dennis Gilmore   2009-04-01 12:36:30 EDT ---
CVS Done

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System   2009-04-01 13:48:35 EDT ---
unzoo-4.4-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unzoo-4.4-4.fc10

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

John W. Linville  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #16 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil   2009-04-01 15:52:26 EDT ---
Great, now we can update the deco-archive package so that deco can use unzoo
instead of zoo, which is not available in Fedora.

Where can we download .zoo files for testing?

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System   2009-04-02 13:13:05 EDT ---
unzoo-4.4-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=491875

--- Comment #18 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil   2009-04-04 21:50:48 EDT ---
Anyway, I rebuilt deco-archive with unzoo support.