https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Bug ID: 862850 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: phatina@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: SIMPLE-MTPFS (Simple Media Transfer Protocol FileSystem) is a file system for Linux capable of operating on files on MTP devices attached via USB to local machine.
Fedora Account System Username: phatina
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint simple-mtpfs-0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint simple-mtpfs-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint simple-mtpfs-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |echevemaster@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Peter You don't need this dependencies in spec BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 4.7 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#...
You don't need BuildRequires: autoconf Only needs If you got the sources from git repository (ie to run autogen.sh) Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #2 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 4.7 - is added due to c++11 dependency.
BuildRequires: autoconf - removed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Peter: Btw, gcc is in 4.7 since f17, you have plans in f16? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=40 Remember to increase the release number each time you make a change in spec. Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #4 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- Fair point.
BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 4.7 - removed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #5 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Peter Please Remember to increase the release number each time you make a change in spec and Changelog
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Namin...
Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #6 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- made these changes I would like to take this review request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Peter, remove %defattr(-, root, root, -), this only for EPEL5 Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #8 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- OK, defattr removed.
I will bump the release number once the package is reviewed, has it's own git repo and is available for fedora. I am aware of that rule, but in the review process, I think it's pointless. To add, there is no history track of the spec file, so when pushing the spec into newly created git repo, it will look weird, when doing initial import with release number different than 1. Correct me, if I am wrong.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Peter
When you state that the package is available for Fedora, I guess is a orphan package, but when I doing a search in the database of orphans , I have not it found.
In such case the packet passes through a re-review, with the same rules of a package new
So should increase the release tag each time you make a change to the spec, change tracking belongs to his work with that package
Worth mentioning that you have already made ​​four changes to this spec so:
Release: 4%{?dist} %changelog * Tue Oct 06 2012 Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com - 0.1-3 - Remove defattr
Release: 3%{?dist} %changelog * Tue Oct 06 2012 Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com - 0.1-3 - Remove gcc
Release: 2%{?dist} %changelog * Tue Oct 05 2012 Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com - 0.1-2 - Remove autoconf
Release: 1%{?dist} %changelog * Tue Oct 03 2012 Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com - 0.1-1 - initial import
Best Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |echevemaster@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #10 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- Hi Edurardo,
we misunderstood each other. This is a new package and currently, it's not available anywhere, except github.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #11 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Peter In this case you should still follow the same rules. please see this example http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/1/openteacher.spec http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/2/openteacher.spec Specifically in the release and changelog tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #12 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- Hi Eduardo, done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #13 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- You must also build the SRPM for to make fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #14 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- In a new comment please Example: Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs-0.1-4.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #15 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Ready, I Found
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #16 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Peter the license is GPLv3 or GPLv3+, can you verify? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPLCompatibilityM... Change the tag license in the spec please, to continue with the review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #17 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- Hi Eduardo,
changed the license to GPLv3+.
Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs-0.1-5.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Thank for your patience:
Koji Build Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568306 Koji Build f18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568320 Koji Build f17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568325
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/862850-simple-mtpfs/licensecheck.txt GPLv3+ [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (simple-mtpfs-0.1.tar.gz) OK [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: simple-mtpfs-debuginfo-0.1-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm simple-mtpfs-0.1-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm simple-mtpfs-0.1-5.fc17.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint simple-mtpfs simple-mtpfs-debuginfo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- simple-mtpfs-debuginfo-0.1-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
simple-mtpfs-0.1-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfuse.so.2()(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.5)(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6)(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.8)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmtp.so.9()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- simple-mtpfs-debuginfo-0.1-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
simple-mtpfs-debuginfo = 0.1-5.fc17 simple-mtpfs-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.1-5.fc17
simple-mtpfs-0.1-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
simple-mtpfs = 0.1-5.fc17 simple-mtpfs(x86-64) = 0.1-5.fc17
MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/downloads/phatina/simple-mtpfs/simple-mtpfs-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a9af51a1dd588229284ccd4bb003fc82deb81f1d3ae9ec84656c49410b1d5ccb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9af51a1dd588229284ccd4bb003fc82deb81f1d3ae9ec84656c49410b1d5ccb
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #19 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- Thank you Eduardo!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #20 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- You're welcome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #21 from Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: simple-mtpfs Short Description: Fuse-based MTP driver Owners: phatina Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #22 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Peter Hatina phatina@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-10-10 04:50:45
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla