Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 166960
Summary: | Review Request: Fuse-emulator | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Paul F. Johnson <paul> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list, musuruan |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulators | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-03-18 22:59:38 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 171801 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 167364 |
Description
Paul F. Johnson
2005-08-29 00:49:54 UTC
I've uploaded a new spec file which packages without the ROMS. http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/fuse-0.7.0-noroms.spec I'm just wondering: Not that we name fuse-utils fuse-emulator-utils shouldn't we name the core package fuse-emulator? FWIW I think "fuse-emulator" is a better name, "fuse" is really short and might conflict with the user-space filesystem project at some point. Then again, I'm a Vic20 fan, so what do I know :-) Okay, name changed. Dave, I always had you down as either a Dragon32 or Oric user mate! Can someone give it a bashing so I can have it entered into extras? Please do the following for all of the packages in this ticket: - Remove the BR: perl (its not needed) - Use %configure instead of ./configure --prefix=... - Provide Source: with full path to upstream source - make all Devel packages Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - delete the .la files and don't include them in the -devel packages I'll do a full review on the fixed packages when I see em. :) New spec files and new src.rpms now uploaded http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/lib765-0.3.3-1.spec http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/libspectrum-0.2.2-2.spec http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/libdsk-1.1.4-1.spec src rpm names libdsk-1.1.4-1.2.src.rpm lib765-0.3.3-1.2.src.rpm libspectrum-0.2.2-2.3.src.rpm Main fuse compilation causing a few problems, so will complete that tonight (different box) New fuse-emulator spec http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/fuse-0.7.0.spec src rpm fuse-0.7.0-4.src.rpm Some notes after a quick look at the fuse-emulator package: The package is still called fuse rather than fuse-emulator The spec file name is fuse-0.7.0-noroms.spec but should be fuse-emulator.spec Some optimization of the BuildRequires is possible: * zlib-devel is required by libxml2-devel and libpng-devel and can be omitted * glibc-devel is required by gcc and can be omitted You have: Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils but the %post and %postun scriptlets are empty What's with the BR: gtk2-devel => 2.8.0; this prevents builds on FC4 and below, and appears to be unnecessary; the package builds fine on FC4 with gtk2-devel 2.6.10 anyway and the configure script only appears to check for version 2.0.0 or above The libraries should really have separate review requests rather than being lumped into one big request like this one The tarball URL referenced in the ROMS file does not work Spec file should clearly indicate that the SRPM tarball is modified from upstream so as to not include the ROMS (maybe rename the tarball fuse-noroms-0.7.0...) A quick HOWTO describing how to run some of the examples in the z88dk package would be nice; I haven't figured it out yet so perhaps it's non-obvious... New fuse-emulator spec http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/emulation/downloads/fuse-emulator-0.7.0.spec src rpm fuse-0.7.0-5.src.rpm I am going to open new requests for the libraries and changing the summary request name to reflect this Libraries now in #171801 Bug reopened as this package has never been approved. Ping spot, come in spot... (In reply to comment #13) > Ping spot, come in spot... I would suggest having working spec/SRPM URLs before pinging Spot. Odd - they were there a week or so back. I'll have to rebuild from home tonight and upload. (In reply to comment #15) > Odd - they were there a week or so back. I'll have to rebuild from home tonight > and upload. Please ensure that the spec file name is "fuse-emulator.spec" rather than "fuse-emulator-0.7.0.spec" when you do this. New URLS http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/fuse-emulator.spec http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/fuse-emulator-0.7.0-6.src.rpm Now correctly packaged and with the fresh smell of mint Earth to spot, come in spot... Earth to spot, come in spot... /me watches the tumbleweed... Alright, alright, I'm on it. The obvious issue that I have already hit is that lib765-devel does not Require: lib765 = %{version}-%{release}. Please fix that in CVS and rebuild. Good: - rpmlint checks return nothing - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Bad: - Source does not match upstream: md5sum upstream/fuse-0.7.0.tar.gz ../SOURCES/fuse-0.7.0.tar.gz d81ad260cd6a8dd533af01ee6a5f9527 upstream/fuse-0.7.0.tar.gz ebb124e808e6467630efaae01fe03b64 ../SOURCES/fuse-0.7.0.tar.gz Show me a new SRPM with source that matches upstream, and I'll approve this. They won't match as they're not the same. The original tarball contains the ROMS which needed to be omitted. If the ROMs are in the SRPM, won't that also give the same problems as if if they were included in the main RPM? Ahh, ok. Then this is approved. Please add the package in owners.list Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: fuse-emulator Updated Fedora Owners: packages,paul.uk The current maintainer (paul.uk) has given me his permission to take ownership of this package as he is unable to maintain it at the moment for personal reasons. I would like Paul to remain as co-maintainer in case he wishes to continue with the package in the future. cvs done. |