Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: cattelan@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://xfs.org/~cattelan/xfsdump.spec SRPM URL: http://xfs.org/~cattelan/xfsdump-2.2.38-1.src.rpm Description: package for xfs dump/restore xfs_copy xfs_defrag
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2006-08-09 09:08 EST ------- rpmlint is not silent W: xfsdump summary-ended-with-dot Administrative utilities for the XFS filesystem. Summary ends with a dot.
==> Remove dot at end of Summary description
E: xfsdump no-changelogname-tag There is no %changelog tag in your spec file. To insert it, just insert a '%changelog' in your spec file and rebuild it.
==> you have not added Changelog. Add it.
W: xfsdump mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
When i look at SPEC file i found :- - dist tag is missing - I dont think Obsoletes and Conflicts is needed as package name is not changed from previous version. - You have added twice make %{?_smp_mflags}. Remove one line - No Document files added. try to add under %files %doc README doc/COPYING doc/CHANGES doc/README.xfsdump doc/xfsdump_ts.txt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-08-09 13:48 EST ------- Thanks for the comments, I think I've addressed the issues except for the dist tag. (not sure how that is suppose to be handled).
The Buildrequires has also been fixed to include the needed devel libs.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-08-09 13:52 EST ------- Ohh one other note: The patch to remove libdm has been checked in upstream, it is not the same patch as in the original post but meets the same goal of not needing libdm-devel.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cweyl@alumni.drew.edu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-08-10 11:49 EST ------- Nuts. I meant to assign this to myself last night to review -- I figured I have a vested interest in it as a XFS fanboy since the first XFS-enabled RH 7.x "installer CD's" were out -- but Russell, are you sponsored? If not, then this bug needs to also block "FE-NEEDSPONSOR", and I can make comments but can't do the first binding review.
It's also convention when making updates during a review to bump the release and spin a new srpm. Helps people make sure that we're all talking about the same package:)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-08-10 15:25 EST ------- Hmm sorry I'n new to the whole review process so I'm not sure what it takes to be "sponsored", is there some info on this someplace.
bump the release, ok will do.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From paul@city-fan.org 2006-08-10 16:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5)
Hmm sorry I'n new to the whole review process so I'm not sure what it takes to be "sponsored", is there some info on this someplace.
The process of becoming a Fedora Extras Contributor is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
You've already done much of what's described there. There's more information on getting sponsored linked from there too.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-08-10 16:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5)
Hmm sorry I'n new to the whole review process so I'm not sure what it takes to be "sponsored", is there some info on this someplace.
Basically, sponsorship is just a way for people with established track records in the Extras community (sponsors) to mentor new packagers. It's designed to both educate (sponsoree) and ensure responsibility (sponsor).
There are a couple good pages in the wiki about this: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored
The second would seem to be on point here...
Also, is it just me or should this spec have a buildrequires of ncurses-devel?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |nobody@fedoraproject.org
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-08-17 15:21 EST ------- "reassigned" to the new nobody id to make it clear this has not been formally taken for review yet.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-08-17 20:39 EST ------- Just an experiment.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|Reopened | CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-08-17 21:30 EST ------- Interesting, so you can get a package back to the "NEW" state by closing and then reopening it.
Russell, lately I've been sponsoring various Red Hat folks on the basis of a single package as long as they're responsive, which it looks like you've been. Unfortunately, I don't really have the means to test this properly. If there's someone who is willing to chip in with the testing, I'm willing to sponsor and do the review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-08-17 21:32 EST ------- I'll volunteer to test. Every box of mine is XFS :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-08-18 11:06 EST ------- Note the xfs-cmds cvs tree on oss.sgi.com contains the xfstest scripts, many of which run xfsdump/restore regression tests.
This scripts are run nightly by Nathan Scott at SGI but only on x86 and ia64 machines. If anybody has other architectures available to test it would to good to have those results as well.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-08-18 17:41 EST ------- OK, I'll go ahead and review this. The links at the top are the only ones I could find for the package; is that actually the current version?
First off, it doesn't build due to a lack of ncurses-devel.
Once I add that it does build. Here's what rpmlint says:
W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsrestore /sbin/xfsrestore W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsdump /sbin/xfsdump Indeed, these should be relative symlinks.
Plus there are tons of these in the debuginfo package: W: xfsdump-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/xfsdump-2.2.38/dump/inv_stobj.c ../inventory/inv_stobj.c
It seems that rpmbuild doesn't include the "common" directory in the package for whatever reason. I don't know how to convince it to do so. I guess that if it were a big deal you could flatten the links. Unfortunately I don't know whether it's a big deal or not so I'll have to ask around.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-08-20 15:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12)
Note the xfs-cmds cvs tree on oss.sgi.com contains the xfstest scripts, many of which run xfsdump/restore regression tests.
This scripts are run nightly by Nathan Scott at SGI but only on x86 and ia64 machines. If anybody has other architectures available to test it would to good to have those results as well.
If there is a test suite, doesn't it make sense to include it in the package as well? Even if it's another tarball, %check makes such testing easy, and we'd be able to take advantage of automating this routine testing during the build on the builders (which include ppc).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From esandeen@redhat.com 2006-08-22 12:41 EST ------- The test suite doesn't just test xfsdump, it tests most all xfs functionality. There is no specific xfsdump testsuite.
It also requires that other packages be installed, and requires scratch partitions available. And it can run for a very long time. The full test suite is probably much to invasive for an rpm %check phase.
-Eric
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-08-22 17:45 EST -------
OK, I'll go ahead and review this. The links at the top are the only ones I could find for the package; is that actually the current version?
First off, it doesn't build due to a lack of ncurses-devel.
Ok added that to the BuildRequires
Once I add that it does build. Here's what rpmlint says:
W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsrestore /sbin/xfsrestore W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsdump /sbin/xfsdump Indeed, these should be relative symlinks.
Ok fixed these up in the spec file.
(new spec file uploaded)
Plus there are tons of these in the debuginfo package: W: xfsdump-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/xfsdump-2.2.38/dump/inv_stobj.c ../inventory/inv_stobj.c
It seems that rpmbuild doesn't include the "common" directory in the package for whatever reason. I don't know how to convince it to do so. I guess that if it were a big deal you could flatten the links. Unfortunately I don't know whether it's a big deal or not so I'll have to ask around.
I appears that /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh is not picking up the files. using vpath vs symlinks would be the right thing to do. Unfortunately there seems to be some ugly hacks with a .c file picking up a different include file based on which directory is being compiled. Has to do with getop.h for each command the c file is common but it picks up different options based on which getopt.h it finds in the current directory.
So ya it appears the debug package is not that trivial.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-08-23 19:53 EST ------- I agree about the debuginfo package, and it's OK if it's not really possible to make it complete, but I don't know what to do about the dangling symlinks. You can't just delete them from the source directory as that would break short-circuit builds.
I wanted to build the package with your changes but the src.rpm link is no longer valid.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-08-29 16:09 EST ------- Sorry updated the wrong bug. There are now links to the latest srpm
http://xfs.org/~cattelan/xfsdump.spec http://xfs.org/~cattelan/xfsdump.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-08-30 00:29 EST ------- I tried to come up with some way to clean up the rpmlint warnings from the debuginfo package and I'm out of ideas. Perhaps some expert has a solution, but in the absense of one I'm not going to let that block things. The only thing rpmlint has to complain about is the debuginfo package.
Some remaining issues that I've notices while doing the full review:
Don't use Distribution:.
You don't use the %dist tag in your Release:. It's not mandatory but strongly recommended; if you don't use it, you must be very careful to keep your versions straight across the potentially five different releases that this package will be built for.
Really the only blocker is the use of Distribution:; I'll leave the dist tag up to you but remind you to take care if you do not add it, especially with your first FC5 build after you branch as it will have the same version and won't permit you to tag.
At this point you should go ahead and request cvsextras membership, and fedorabugs if you want it. I'll approve you and then you'll be able to check in. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#GetAFedoraAccount has details.
Review: * source files match upstream: 4e113a39b07723bbb140d2e5c5389cfe xfsdump_2.2.42-1.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O debuginfo package has problems which aren't easily soluble. O rpmlint has valid but unfixable complaints (-debuginfo package only) * final provides and requires are sane: xfsdump = 2.2.42-1 = attr >= 2.0.0 libattr.so.1()(64bit) libattr.so.1(ATTR_1.0)(64bit) libhandle.so.1()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) xfsprogs >= 2.6.30 * %check is not present; running upstream test suite is not reasonable. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings.
APPROVED, provided you remove Distribution:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
cattelan@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |npearl@sgi.com
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-09-06 12:30 EST ------- *** Bug 116016 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@redhat.com 2006-09-06 12:34 EST ------- The src rpm has been checked into the fedora cvs repository and the build has passed the build test. So at this point I think the xfsdump package should be ready to go. I'm not clear if there is anything else that needs to be done before it it built and distributed as part of "extras"
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-09-06 12:40 EST ------- You built on the development branch, so your package will automatically be available to rawhide users at the next package push and will be in FE6 when it branches.
If you want to make a release for FC5, request an FC5 branch at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded
Once that gets done, you can tag and build for FC5.
At this point, though, you can close this bug unless you want to wait until the FC5 branch is complete.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-09-15 23:37 EST ------- Is there some reason this package hasn't been built yet?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
cattelan@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |FC6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
esandeen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From esandeen@redhat.com 2007-06-20 13:27 EST ------- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xfsdump Updated Fedora Owners: cattelan@thebarn.com,esandeen@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-06-20 16:43 EST ------- cattelan@thebarn.com doesn't seem to be listed in the account system. Did you mean that to stay cattelan@redhat.com?
Added esandeen@redhat.com. Re-request if you want to change the other address.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From cattelan@thebarn.com 2007-06-20 18:05 EST ------- no cattelan@thebarn.com I don't work for RedHat anymore :-)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
------- Additional Comments From esandeen@redhat.com 2007-06-20 18:09 EST ------- right, so you need a fedora acct w/ that email, Russell.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
esandeen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From esandeen@redhat.com 2007-09-10 23:45 EST ------- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xfsdump Updated Fedora Owners: esandeen@redhat.com
(please remove cattelan@redhat.com - no such account anymore, cvs mail is bouncing, no other account in the fedora system yet)
Also, if CC: doesn't have to be in the account system, please:
Updated Fedora CC: cattelan@thebarn.com
otherwise perhaps we can drop him until (if/when) he gets his fedora acct set up.
Thanks, -Eric
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-09-11 12:27 EST ------- cvs done.
cattelan has to be in the account system to be in packagedb to be listed in CC for the package. ;(
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla