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

Bug 199183

Summary: Review Request: e2tools - Manipulate files in unmounted ext2/ext3 filesystems
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Andreas Thienemann <andreas>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: cweyl, j, mr.ecik, panemade, rhbugs
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-11-01 13:55:47 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779    

Description Andreas Thienemann 2006-07-17 19:55:55 UTC
Spec URL:
A simple set of utilities to read, write, and manipulate files in an
ext2/ext3 filesystem directly using the ext2fs library. This does not
require any of

  - root access
  - the filesystem to be mounted
  - the kernel to support ext2

The utilities are: e2cp e2ln e2ls e2mkdir e2mv e2rm e2tail

Comment 1 Michał Bentkowski 2006-07-18 10:13:41 UTC
Hi! I'm not yet sponsored so this is not official review.
* MUST items:
- rpmlint doesn't show anything
- package is named according to Packaging Naming Guidelines
- the spec file name is correct
- package meets Packaging Guidelines
- package is licensed with an open-source license - GPL, license field
match actual license and package contains file with text of license in %doc
- spec file is written in American English and is legible
- package successfully compile on i386
- package doesn't contain duplicate files in %files section
- %files section includes %defattr(...) line
- spec file contains proper %clean section
- macros is used proper in spec file
and all others 'must' doesn't concern this package.

I think you don't need CPPFLAGS="-Wall -Werror" in %build section, because
the build server has his own CPPFLAGS (I think so) and could you explain
what %%check section exaclty does?

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-07-19 06:18:34 UTC
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
   Mock build for rawhide i386 is successfull.

* MUST Items:
      - rpmlint shows no errors
      - dist tag is present.
      - The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
      - The spec file name matching the base package e2tools, in the
format e2tools.spec.
      - This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
      - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
      - The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
      - This package includes License file COPYING.
      - This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in %doc.
      - The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (1829b2b261e0e0d07566066769b5b28b
      - This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386
      - This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
      - This package owns all directories that it creates. 
      - This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
      - This package  have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
      - This package used macros.
      - Document files are included like  README COPYING ChangeLog TODO AUTHORS.
      - 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)
      * I did not test package.

Comment 3 Andreas Thienemann 2006-07-19 16:05:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)

> I think you don't need CPPFLAGS="-Wall -Werror" in %build section, because
> the build server has his own CPPFLAGS (I think so) and could you explain
> what %%check section exaclty does?
I wanted them explicitly.

%check does a function test of the built binaries, making sure they do work.

It's just another build-stage.

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2006-07-21 01:06:54 UTC
Seems to have some 64-bit problems:

cc1: warnings being treated as errors
rm.c: In function 'e2rm':
rm.c:248: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size

Comment 5 Chris Weyl 2006-07-21 06:29:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Seems to have some 64-bit problems:
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> rm.c: In function 'e2rm':
> rm.c:248: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size

Is this a problem?  It should be, e.g., a 32-bit integer -> 64-bit pointer? 

Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2006-07-21 13:41:44 UTC
It's obviously a problem in that it fails the build due to -Wall.  Whether it
woulc actually cause any problems in the running program, I can't say since it
didn't build.

Comment 7 Hans Ulrich Niedermann 2006-07-21 14:11:50 UTC
The expression in question is

(void *)
(verbose) ? &verbose : NULL

That should almost certainly read

(void *) (
(verbose) ? &verbose : NULL )


Comment 9 Andreas Thienemann 2006-07-31 11:13:14 UTC
Okay, new upload at fixing the
x86_64 build issue and incorporating Uli's fixes.

Comment 10 Jason Tibbitts 2006-10-06 03:04:09 UTC
This seems to have dropped through the cracks.  I grabbed the package from and it builds fine on

* source files match upstream:
   1829b2b261e0e0d07566066769b5b28b  e2tools-0.0.16.tar.gz
* 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 is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   e2tools = 0.0.16-5.fc6
* %check is present and all tests pass (as far as I can tell)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.


Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2006-10-29 06:01:06 UTC
Ping?  This has been approved for three weeks now; any reason it hasn't been
checked in yet?

Comment 12 Hans Ulrich Niedermann 2006-10-30 12:06:53 UTC
Andreas, if you're OK with it, I can take it over.