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

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jun 8 21:51:40 UTC 2008


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: afio - cpio compatible archiver


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037





------- Additional Comments From bruno.cornec at hp.com  2008-06-08 17:51 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I agree with Kyle that its easier on the reviewers if you don't require them to
> download and unpack your src.rpm to take a quick look at your spec.  I guess it
> depends on how much you really want to have your software reviewed.

First sorry for the fact I didn't answer to Kyle. I just didn't receive a mail
warning me of his answer :-(. I have no problem providing the .spec file of course.

> Now, I did unpack and build it.  First, the rpmlint output:
>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/afio.1.gz
> There's no reason for the manpage to be executable.

Yep. Fixed.

>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/restore
>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_read
>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_read
>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_write
>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script4/tapechange
>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_write
>   W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup
> It's not necessarily a blocker for documentation to be executable, but you
> should consider whether you expect that anyone will need to call those scripts,
> because you shouldn't expect people to have to run things out of /usr/share/doc.

In fact those are set up by the upstream make install procedure because those
are scripts given as example. That way you just have to copy them to be able to
use them. Let me know if you think It would be better to change that in the spec
file.

>   W: invalid-license GPL
> Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and choose an appropriate
> License: tag.

Oops. More over it's LGPL in fact. So used LGPLv2+

>   W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup /bin/bash
> This shouldn't be an issue if those scripts actually belong in the
> documentation.  We will avoid the case that documentation brings in significant
> additional dependencies, but bash isn't problematic.

So I think I can let it like that ?

> Other comments:
> Please be consistent in macro use in the spec; if you're going to use "%{__rm}"
> then you need to use "%{__mkdir}", "%{__mkdir_p}", "%{__install}", etc.  Or you
> can just use the non-macro versions throughout and save the typing.  It's up to
> you, but you must be consistent.

Ok I remove the %{__rm} and use rm

> You must not hardcode ".fc9".  Please use the %{dist} tag appropriately:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag

Ok, done.

> Is ftp.project-builder.org really the canonical upstream for the source?  It
> seems like the URL you provide doesn't point to that site at all.

The canonical upstream is what is mentioned in the Url: tag
Should I also use it for the Source: tag (I used the place where I store a copy
alongside the packages I made).

Thanks for your help.
Newet build is at the same place, + spec file:
ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/afio-2.5-1.fc9.src.rpm
ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/afio.spec

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list