[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools Alias: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools Alias: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||hfsplus-tools -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||edu)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 18:38 EST ---
Using my own review checklist:
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/review-checklist-1.1.txt
1. No rpmlint output, good.
2. The package doesn't use the upstream name (diskdev_cmds), as recommended by
the Package Naming Guidelines. However, the upstream name isn't particularly
descriptive, and your choice is. I think the name is acceptable.
3. Spec is hfsplus-tools.spec, check.
4. As far as I can tell, this package meetings the Packaging Guidelines.
5. Licensed under Apple Public Source License, verified OSI-approved by
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php
6. Spec lists license as Apple Public Source License -- should it be this or
APSL? Most licenses seem to be abbreviated, but this is the first
APSL-licensed package in Fedora I've seen (and I checked all of FC5/FE5).
7. Package doesn't contain a copy of the license text -- submitter has acquired
it as suggested by a quasi-reviewer (thanks Tibbs!).
8. Spec is written in American English.
9. Spec is legible, but slightly confusing -- fortunately the submitter made
lots of comments.
10. Source/patch match upstream, as verified by md5sum.
11. Package built on i386/ppc, the two supported architectures I have.
12. n/a, I suspect.
13. I imagine all BuildReqs are listed; the package built in Plague.
14. n/a
15. No shared libraries (or libraries at all).
16. n/a
17. Doesn't create any directories (besides %doc).
18. No duplicate %files entries.
19. %defattr looks okay.
20. %clean looks good.
21. Macro use appears consistent.
22. Package contains code (and associated documentation).
23. %doc is one file; probably not excessive.
24. %doc does not affect runtime of software.
25. No headers or static libraries.
26. No .pc files.
27. No library files.
28. No -devel subpackage.
29. No .la files.
30. No GUI apps.
31. Package owns files owned by hfsplusutils, but has an appropriate Conflicts
entry. hfsplusutils' most recent upstream release appears to be over four years
old; I'm not sure if offering a more current alternative is much of a crime.
(I'd like to hear some more feedback on this, though.)
32. Release tag contains %{?dist}.
33. The tarball lacks a text copy of the license; you may want to query upstream
to include it. (Optional.)
34. No translations are available, as far as I'm aware.
35. The package built in Plague for i386 ppc.
36. I can't verify x86_64 for lack of hardware, so I can't guarantee this.
37. I specifically reconnected the Mac OS X hard drive in one of my PPC systems
to test this program:
# fsck.hfsplus /dev/hda9
** /dev/hda9
** Checking HFS Plus volume.
** Checking Extents Overflow file.
** Checking Catalog file.
** Checking multi-linked files.
** Checking Catalog hierarchy.
** Checking volume bitmap.
** Checking volume information.
** The volume Macintosh HD appears to be OK.
Not a surefire test, but it definitely didn't segfault.
38. I don't see any scriptlets.
39. n/a, no subpackages.
I'd like to get some public opinion on the hfsplus-tools vs. hfsplusutils issue
(and the License tag, too), but aside from that, I don't see anything holding
this package up.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |edu)| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 18:52 EST --- Uber-reviewer Tibbs chimed in and didn't see anything wrong with either matter, so I'm putting the APPROVED stamp on this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 20:33 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review, jima! My iPod thanks you as well ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gentoo- ||wiki.com/HOWTO_hfsplus -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 23:52 EST --- rpmlint has this to say: W: hfsplus-tools no-documentation It looks like there are manpages in the tarball; any reason not to package them? These are from executable source files. Easily fixed with a quick chmod. E: hfsplus-tools-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/diskdev_cmds-332.11/fsck_hfs.tproj/dfalib/hfs_endian.h E: hfsplus-tools-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/diskdev_cmds-332.11/fsck_hfs.tproj/dfalib/hfs_endian.c E: hfsplus-tools-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/diskdev_cmds-332.11/fsck_hfs.tproj/dfalib/HardLinkCheck.c E: hfsplus-tools-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/diskdev_cmds-332.11/fsck_hfs.tproj/dfalib/SRebuildCatalogBTree.c E: hfsplus-tools-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/diskdev_cmds-332.11/fsck_hfs.tproj/dfalib/BTreeScanner.c E: hfsplus-tools-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/diskdev_cmds-332.11/fsck_hfs.tproj/dfalib/BTreeScanner.h While it's true that the source is all under the APSL and that this package doesn't actually include a copy, the APSL is sufficiently both different and uncommon that I do think it would be a good idea to include it in the package. I couldn't find it directly in text form, but you can snip it from http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/. It doesn't look as if the compiler is being called with the proper flags. The gentoo patch sets up its own set of CFLAGS which are not the ones used in Fedora. I wonder if it works to delete CFLAGS from the Makefiles and then pass them on the commandline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:05 EST --- When i Mock build this SRPM, I got error: unpacking of archive failed on file /builddir/build/SOURCES/diskdev_cmds-332.11.tar.gz;44acd0bf: cpio: read failed - Invalid argument -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 22:30 EST --- Erm... works for me? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
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: hfsplus-tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 23:51 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull with some warnings
SBTree.c: In function 'SearchBTreeRecord': SBTree.c:96: warning: pointer targets
in passing argument 1 of 'DebugStr' differ in signedness
* MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint on binary RPM shows error.
W: hfsplus-tools invalid-license Apple Public Source License
The license you specified is invalid. The valid licenses are:
-GPL-LGPL
-Artistic -BSD
-MIT-QPL
-MPL-IBM Public License
-Apache License -PHP License
-Public Domain -Modified CNRI Open Source
License
-zlib License -CVW License
-Ricoh Source Code Public License -Python license
-Vovida Software License-Sun Internet Standards Source
License
-Intel Open Source License -Jabber Open Source License
if the license is close to an existing one, you can use 'license style'.
W: hfsplus-tools no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc).
You have to include documentation files.
- MUST: dist tag is present.
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package hfsplus-tools, in the
format hfsplus-tools.spec.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(2a707860a8e81308777afd5a821eec07)
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
- MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
You Need to do :
Add Documentation files and also package must conatain Open source
License.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
