[Bug 449037] Review Request: afio - cpio compatible archiver

Sun Aug 10 20:54:49 UTC 2008

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=449037

--- Comment #4 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray at gmail.com>  2008-08-10 16:54:48 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=313898)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=313898)
Patch to fix warnings and deprecated code.

MUST Items: 

xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM
    + [rishi at freebook x86_64]$ rpmlint afio-2.5-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm 
      afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/restore
      afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_read
      afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_read
      afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_write
      afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script4/tapechange
      afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_write
      afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup
      afio.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup /bin/bash
      [rishi at freebook x86_64]$ 

OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + Broken Source tag. Use the URL publised by upstream:
      http://freshmeat.net/redir/afio/144/url_tgz/afio-2.5.tgz
    + The description should be slightly more verbose than the summary. See

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
      You can consider using the following paragraph from the README file:
      "Afio makes cpio-format archives.  It deals somewhat gracefully with
      input data corruption.  Supports multi-volume archives during
      interactive operation.  Afio can make compressed archives that are
      much safer than compressed tar or cpio archives.  Afio is best used as
      an `archive engine' in a backup script."
    + It might be a good idea to add a check stanza and run 'make regtest' and
      'make regtest2gb' in it.
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps you
      should use 'install -p'.
    + The ANNOUNCE-2.5 file contains useful information. It should be added to
      %doc in the %files stanza.
    + The ChangeLog file contains no useful information. It should not be
      distributed.
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the
      INSTALLATION file should not be distributed.
    + The Dist tag (ie. fc9) should not be a part of the %changelog entry. See
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines

?? - License field meets actual license
    + The header in afio.c says:
      "This software package can also be re-distributed under
      particular conditions that are _weaker_ than the Perl "Artistic
      License" combined with the GNU Library General Public License.
      Redistribution need only satisfy all four license notices below."
      I am not sure how this might affect the License tag. Need to verify.

OK - upstream license file included in %doc
    + The perl.artistic.license file might need to be distributed.

OK - spec file uses American English

OK - spec file is legible
    + You might want to split the %doc in multiple lines to achieve the 72/80
      character rule. But it is a matter of style and upto you.

xx - sources match upstream sources
    + The MD5SUM does not match.
      Tarball found in SRPM:
      70fd825bd8af83473eb52d140df84cc3 
      Upstream sources from
      http://freshmeat.net/redir/afio/144/url_tgz/afio-2.5.tgz:
      8c6665e0f875dcd8e1bdb18644b59688

OK - package builds successfully
    + You could consider using the attached patch to fix warnings and
      deprecated code.
      Getting the patch upstream should be the final goal.

OK - ExcludeArch not needed
OK - build dependencies correctly listed
OK - no locales
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file

xx - file permissions set properly
    + The scripts in %doc should not have their executable bits set.
    + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-)

OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

OK - upstream provides license text
OK - translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are not needed
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.