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 166960 - Review Request: Fuse-emulator
Summary: Review Request: Fuse-emulator
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: David Lawrence
Depends On: 171801
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT 167364
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2005-08-29 00:49 UTC by Paul F. Johnson
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-03-18 22:59:38 UTC
Type: ---
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Paul F. Johnson 2005-09-02 23:10:22 UTC
I've uploaded a new spec file which packages without the ROMS.

Comment 2 Paul F. Johnson 2005-09-02 23:30:02 UTC
srpm now uploaded

Comment 3 Thorsten Leemhuis 2005-09-03 05:40:51 UTC
I'm just wondering: Not that we name fuse-utils fuse-emulator-utils shouldn't we
name the core package fuse-emulator?

Comment 4 Dave Malcolm 2005-09-08 21:21:26 UTC
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 :-)

Comment 5 Paul F. Johnson 2005-09-08 23:29:05 UTC
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?

Comment 6 Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-10-05 17:52:43 UTC
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. :)

Comment 7 Paul F. Johnson 2005-10-17 16:53:23 UTC
New spec files and new src.rpms now uploaded

src rpm names


Main fuse compilation causing a few problems, so will complete that tonight
(different box)

Comment 8 Paul F. Johnson 2005-10-17 22:28:18 UTC
New fuse-emulator spec

src rpm

Comment 9 Paul Howarth 2005-10-18 12:20:03 UTC
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

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...

Comment 10 Paul F. Johnson 2005-10-26 17:21:04 UTC
New fuse-emulator spec

src rpm

I am going to open new requests for the libraries and changing the summary
request name to reflect this

Comment 11 Paul F. Johnson 2005-10-26 17:24:17 UTC
Libraries now in #171801

Comment 12 Paul Howarth 2006-01-15 10:30:14 UTC
Bug reopened as this package has never been approved.

Comment 13 Paul F. Johnson 2006-01-17 23:09:56 UTC
Ping spot, come in spot...

Comment 14 Paul Howarth 2006-01-18 07:14:12 UTC
(In reply to comment #13)
> Ping spot, come in spot...

I would suggest having working spec/SRPM URLs before pinging Spot.

Comment 15 Paul F. Johnson 2006-01-18 10:38:54 UTC
Odd - they were there a week or so back. I'll have to rebuild from home tonight
and upload.

Comment 16 Paul Howarth 2006-01-18 10:47:23 UTC
(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.

Comment 17 Paul F. Johnson 2006-02-09 23:19:56 UTC

Now correctly packaged and with the fresh smell of mint

Comment 18 Paul F. Johnson 2006-02-21 00:08:07 UTC
Earth to spot, come in spot...
Earth to spot, come in spot...

Comment 19 Paul F. Johnson 2006-03-07 09:35:07 UTC
/me watches the tumbleweed...

Comment 20 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-03-07 16:03:05 UTC
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.

Comment 21 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-03-07 16:09:05 UTC

- 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


- 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.

Comment 22 Paul F. Johnson 2006-03-07 18:45:07 UTC
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?

Comment 23 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-03-07 18:54:20 UTC
Ahh, ok. Then this is approved.

Comment 24 Christian Iseli 2006-04-08 20:51:46 UTC
Please add the package in owners.list

Comment 25 Ian Chapman 2007-06-28 22:53:36 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: fuse-emulator
Updated Fedora Owners: packages,

The current maintainer ( 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.

Comment 26 Kevin Fenzi 2007-06-28 23:10:36 UTC
cvs done.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.