[Bug 728006] New: Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728006
Summary: Review Request: mhddfs - Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: imntreal@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs.spec SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This FUSE-based file system allows mount points (or directories) to be combined, simulating a single big volume which can merge several hard drives or remote file systems. It is like unionfs, but can choose the drive with the most free space to create new files on, and can move data transparently between drives.
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=728006
--- Comment #1 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-03 19:31:07 EDT --- Forgot a build requirement.
SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-2.fc15.src.rpm
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=728006
Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ndowens04@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-03 22:37:25 EDT --- Are you needing a sponsor?
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=728006
--- Comment #3 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-03 22:49:48 EDT --- No. I already maintain a couple of packages. I just threw this one together for myself, and thought maybe others could use it.
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=728006
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-03 23:03:46 EDT --- install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 install -m 755 %{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} install -m 644 %{name}.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
instead do:
install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 install -m755 %{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/%{name} install -m644 %{name}.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1
SPEC: http://pastebin.com/cpmd7BNd Above is one I updated.
Also if you are not going to release this package for EPEL or RHEL then you can remove: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %clean section and also the defattr(-root,root-)
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=728006
Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ndowens04@gmail.com
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=728006
Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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=728006
Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=728006
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 01:05:44 EDT --- Let me know if you agree on the SPEC file I did or not and works fine for you as well.
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=728006
--- Comment #6 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-04 09:45:51 EDT --- Looks good. You said I could ditch the %clean section, also, right?
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=728006
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 10:50:25 EDT --- As long as it is not being built for RHEL or RPEL
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=728006
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 11:31:11 EDT --- Also FUSE packages must Requires: fuse As I tested it and the application tries to run fusermount.
Glad my sponsor(Peter) noticed, Thanks
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=728006
--- Comment #9 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-04 12:26:44 EDT --- Thanks. Anything else you notice that could use some work?
SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-2.fc15.src.rpm
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=728006
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 12:41:09 EDT --- Also need to up the release version too. Also you don't need %defattr(-,root,root,-)
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 install -m 755 %{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} install -m 644 %{name}.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
Change to rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 install -m 755 %{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/%{name} install -m 644 %{name}.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1
If you do something like install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} it may try install as %{_bindir} instead of the intentional %{_bindir}/bin_file
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=728006
--- Comment #11 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-04 14:14:27 EDT --- Sorry, wrong URL.
SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-3.fc15.src.rpm
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=728006
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 14:21:12 EDT --- Still need to change what I listed above
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=728006
--- Comment #13 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-04 14:37:18 EDT --- Specified file names on install lines:
SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-4.fc15.src.rpm
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=728006
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 15:03:31 EDT --- Legend: + : Good - : Needs work NA: Not Applicable
[+] : rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
rpmlint: SRPM: mhddfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unionfs 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
RPM: mhddfs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unionfs 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Ignoring "error" since unionfs is spelled correctly
[+] : The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [+] : The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. . [+] : The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [+] : The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] : The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] : 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 must be included in %doc. [+] : The spec file must be written in American English. [+] : The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] : The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [+] : The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [NA] : If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] : All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [NA] : The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [NA] : Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [NA] : Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA] : If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] : A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] : A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] : Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] : Each package must consistently use macros. [+] : The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] : Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] [+] : If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] [NA] : Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] [NA] : Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] [NA] : If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] [NA] : In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] [NA] : Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] [NA] : Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] [+] : Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] [+] : All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
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=728006
--- Comment #15 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 15:03:53 EDT --- Package is 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=728006
Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |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=728006
--- Comment #16 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 15:16:38 EDT --- One more thing: change Requires: fuse to Requires: fuse%{?_isa}
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=728006
--- Comment #17 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-04 15:52:22 EDT --- Ok. That should do it.
SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-4.fc15.src.rpm
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=728006
--- Comment #18 from Nathan Owe ndowens04@gmail.com 2011-08-04 15:55:41 EDT --- Remove the Group tag as well just noticed it, and then after that is updated follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
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=728006
Jameson imntreal@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #19 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-04 15:58:49 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mhddfs Short Description: Fuse-based file system for unifying several mount points into one Owners: imntreal Branches: f14 f15 f16 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=728006
--- Comment #20 from Jameson imntreal@gmail.com 2011-08-04 16:05:45 EDT --- Remove the Group tag? Wow, I must have missed a drastic change in the guidlines. Here ya go.
SRPM URL: http://imntreal.fedorapeople.org/mhddfs-0.1.38-6.fc15.src.rpm
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=728006
--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-08-05 06:03:02 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=728006
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=728006
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-09 14:10:15 EDT --- mhddfs-0.1.38-6.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mhddfs-0.1.38-6.fc14
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=728006
Jameson imntreal@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-08-09 14:12:52
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla