[Bug 210840] Review Request: ntfs-3g - Linux NTFS userspace driver

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: ntfs-3g - Linux NTFS userspace driver


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210840


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-10-16 02:15 EST -------
OK, this builds and installs fine in mock on x86_64 rawhide.  rpmlint just says:
  W: ntfs-3g-devel no-documentation
which is OK as there's no developer documentation in the tarball.

One wonders why the date in the version is one year off.

I know you wrote the naming guidelines so perhaps I'm misreading, but I'd
interpret this as a prerelease package and give it a version of 0 and a release
of 0.1.%{buildrev}%{?dist}.

Currently the main executable installs into /usr/bin and a symlink is placed
into /sbin.  I wonder if that should go the other way around.  (Although I guess
it would indeed be insane to try to put /usr on NTFS.)  A quick check shows no
symlinks in /sbin that point outside of /sbin on the systems I have handy.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   6382355a472c96e0ed9f4f62d4d9496f  ntfs-3g-20070920-BETA.tgz
? package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has only acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  ntfs-3g-0.1.20070920-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   libntfs-3g.so.0()(64bit)
   ntfs-3g = 0.1.20070920-1.fc6
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libfuse.so.2()(64bit)
   libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.2)(64bit)
   libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.5)(64bit)
   libntfs-3g.so.0()(64bit)

  ntfs-3g-devel-0.1.20070920-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   ntfs-3g-devel = 0.1.20070920-1.fc6
  =
   libntfs-3g.so.0()(64bit)
   ntfs-3g = 0.1.20070920-1.fc6

! %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I am not able to test this
package as I have no access to NTFS.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (standard ldconfig call)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* unversioned .so file is in the -devel subpackage.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.

-- 
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.