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 210840
Summary: | Review Request: ntfs-3g - Linux NTFS userspace driver | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | j, pertusus |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-10-21 21:49:58 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: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Tom "spot" Callaway
2006-10-16 03:15:18 UTC
I can do a basic review for form, but I have no way to test this since I have no NTFS in sight and there's no mkfs.ntfs included in this package. 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. Guestion: What is the legale state of inclusssion of ntfs into Fedora Extras. As far as I known, the kernel of fedora is compiled without NTFs support becouse of legal issues. But if that not be a issue now, it will be nice if fedora may ship the kernel with compiled NTFS support. My statement is that because the kernel ships with NTFS source code (whether or not it is compiled is immaterial), and the kernel is protected on patents from OIN, then the ntfs userspace implementation which does all of the same things as the kernel code is also protected. I'm challenging the Fedora Board to step up here. Either OIN protects us and we're ok, or it doesn't. And in any case, it's far easier to get a userspace filesystem package into extras than it is to get an updated, fully AQ'd kernel out to core. So, spot, any comment on the two issues I found? And is anyone willing to test this out? Alternately, I guess I could get a friend to NTFS-format a USB stick for me. You're right. I didn't follow my own naming guidelines. Shame on me. :) Seems like it is better to be safe with the /sbin/ /usr/bin scenario and make it a copy rather than a symlink, so thats what I did. Also fixed the versioning/release. New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/ntfs-3g-0-0.2.20070920.fc6.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/ntfs-3g.spec OK, I'm testing (the previous release, as I already had it built). I installed it and fuse-libs came in to satisfy the dependency, and went to mount an NTFS-formatted USB stick I got from a friend. (Bit of a pain to make it, too.) > s mount -t ntfs-3g /dev/sda1 /mnt fuse: failed to exec fusermount: No such file or directory Failed to mount NTFSUnmounting /dev/sda1 (Test) So it looks like there needs to be a dependency on fuse in there. After installing fuse, things seem to work great; I can read existing data, rename files, create new files and delete stuff. The default permissions here are a bit wide-open, which may be troubling, but otherwise things are fine: > grep sda /proc/mounts /dev/sda1 /mnt fuse rw,nosuid,nodev,noatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,allow_other 0 0 Other than that missing dependency on fuse, I'd say everything is fine. I'll go ahead and approve this and you can add it if you do decide to check this in. NTFS should be removed from the forbidden item in packaging guidelines before this can be accepted? Updated ForbiddenItems to remove NTFS, since OIN has us covered on that one. Packages are built and in repo, closing. Just for your information, it does not work with SElinux enabled (bug 211767). |