[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools

Fri Aug 18 22:48:38 UTC 2006

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

jima at beer.tclug.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |NEEDINFO
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |jima at beer.tclug.org
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(cweyl at alumni.drew.
                   |                            |edu)

------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org  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.