[Bug 473180] New: Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473180
Summary: Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: opensource@till.name QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/lzip.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/lzip-1.1-1.tillf8.src.rpm Description: Lzip compresses data using LZMA (Lempel-Ziv-Markov chain-Algorithm). It supports integrity checking using CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check). To archive multiple files, tar can be used with lzip. Please note, that the lzip file format (.lz) is not compatible with the lzma file format (.lzma).
Upstream of pam_mount changed to use this to compress their tarballs, therefore I need it to update pam_mount in rawhide.
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=473180
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource@till.name
--- Comment #1 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2008-11-26 18:19:48 EDT --- Koji scratch build for F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=953814
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=473180
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-11-26 21:36:04 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [!] Rpmlint output: (see note 1) source RPM: lzip.src: W: spelling-error-in-summary integrety integrity binary RPM: lzip.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/lzip-1.1/TODO (see note 2) lzip.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary integrety integrity [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv3+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, conta ining the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 81e920830239a6769164946e6466ff7386e7ce8e lzip-1.1.tar.bz2 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section o f Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane: === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English lang uages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: koji scratch build (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=953814) [x] Package functions as described. [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the test passes. (see note 3)
=== Final Notes === 1. please do not forget to fix the typo in %summary before uploading 2. the TODO file is empty hence useless; I suggest to ditch it 3. there is a check test provided, would be nice to integrate it if possible
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
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=473180
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: lzip - LZMA |Review Request: lzip - LZMA |compressor with integrety |compressor with integrity |checking (needed to update |checking |pam_mount) | Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Till Maas opensource@till.name 2008-11-27 07:01:23 EDT --- Thank you very much for this fast review. I will address all your notes. But I am a little bit uncertain about the TODO file, because I would like to have some mechanism to add it only if it is not empty, e.g. if some contents are added in a future release. I asked in fedora-devel whether this is possible.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: lzip Short Description: LZMA compressor with integrity checking Owners: till Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC:
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=473180
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-12-01 16:42:14 EDT --- cvs done.
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=473180
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-02 13:51:28 EDT --- lzip-1.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lzip-1.1-2.fc10
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=473180
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-02 13:51:32 EDT --- lzip-1.1-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lzip-1.1-2.fc9
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=473180
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-06 23:23:46 EDT --- lzip-1.1-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=473180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=473180
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-06 23:28:03 EDT --- lzip-1.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla