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 212836
Summary: | Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Stewart Adam <s.adam> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | panemade |
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: | 2006-11-03 13:33:40 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
Stewart Adam
2006-10-29 15:26:32 UTC
--add-category X-Fedora\ needs to be dropped for rawhide - I'd just have if ?{%fedora} < "7" --add-category X-Fedora \ endif (or something akin to that) around it. As this application is changing /etc/fstab, can I take it there is something in the code which checks the UID and then requests the user to log in as root? Hmmm... The "if" doesn't work, I tried googling but it seems rpm has ifarch, ifos, etc but not plain ifs. Either way, though, according to here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212350 desktop-file-utils accepts X-Fedora again now. As for the permissions - I use PAM to ask for the root password and from there it's all good. Fixed two bugs: SPEC: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab.spec SRPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01-2.src.rpm RPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01-2.noarch.rpm will review this package but i got some problems while using this. I opened my fstab and tried to add cdrom mouting entry there. It did actually but after applying changes it failed to show that entry why? Can you post the /etc/fstab and the line you tried to add? I didn't try a cdrom, but on my computer it successfully wrote new entries to the fstab... my /etc/fstab /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 / ext3 defaults 1 1 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 /home ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol02 /usr ext3 defaults 1 2 proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs defaults 0 0 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol03 swap swap defaults 0 0 and i tried to add /dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom ext3 i mean i filled 3 input boxes in Add entry box and then i save but i could not able to see any new added entry. will try on other machine also Worked for me: $ cat /etc/fstab ... /dev/cdrom auto /mnt/cdrom defaults 0 0 What where all the fields that you put in? The program will refuse to add a entry with a black 'filesystem' or 'options' for example, because then it would cause errors in the fstab. hi, Are you sure above is correct? I also got it working and got following line /dev/cdrom auto /mnt/cdrom defaults 1 0 then i immediately gave following command and it failed [root@localhost ~]# mount /dev/cdrom mount: mount point auto does not exist so its wrong. it must be /dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom auto defaults 1 0 and it worked. check its entering wrong line in /etc/fstab Fixed... SPEC: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab.spec SRPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01-3.src.rpm RPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01-3.noarch.rpm Are you sure you really fixed bug? i think i am still getting same results as with old package. one more thing you increased rpm package release number. AFAIK this bug is releated with source tarball and if you have modified source tarball then you must increase tarball version also. Fix all then will do official review. Sorry for the troubles - I edited the 'add' function but not the 'edit' one... I tested both on my machine, it should work as it should now. Your right it is, but considering I have 0 downloads (apart from here) I just re-created the tarball... Anyways, I made a new release: SPEC: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab.spec SRPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01.1-1.src.rpm RPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01.1-1.noarch.rpm Now this package looks ok in its packaging and its functioning. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386) for FC6. + rpmlint is silent for RPM and SRPM. + source files match upstream. fb87e760037a9497b1e8f47c8715e65d fwfstab-0.01.1.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written but NOT properly indented. + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + COPYING included in %doc. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc files. + no -devel subpackage exists + no .la files. + no translations available + Provides: config(fwfstab) = 0.01.1-1.fc6 + Requires: /bin/bash /usr/bin/python config(fwfstab) = 0.01.1-1.fc6 pygtk2 pygtk2-libglade python(abi) = 2.4 redhat-artwork usermode + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop file installed succesfully + Desktop file is handled correclty in SPEC file. + GUI app + Followed python packaging guidelines. APPROVED. Don't Forget to CLOSE this bug once you import this package in CVS. Done. Thanks! |