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 216285 - Review Request: kleansweep - Reclaim disk space by finding unneeded files
Summary: Review Request: kleansweep - Reclaim disk space by finding unneeded files
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-11-18 19:17 UTC by Chitlesh GOORAH
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-11-22 20:21:29 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Chitlesh GOORAH 2006-11-18 19:17:31 UTC 
Spec URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/kleansweep.spec
SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/kleansweep-0.2.9-1.src.rpm
Description: 
KleanSweep allows you to reclaim disk space by finding unneeded files. It
can search for files based on several criteria: you can seek for empty
files, backup files, broken symbolic links, dead menu entries, duplicated
files, orphaned files (files not found in the RPM database), and more.
Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-11-19 06:39:28 UTC 
When i downloaded and tried to install SRPM i got 
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/kleansweep-0.2.9.tar.bz2;455ffbc7: cpio: read
Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-11-19 08:10:02 UTC 
Ok, looks like it was some download problem.
Preliminary review first.
Preferred value for buildroot is not present in SPEC value.
Comment 3 Chitlesh GOORAH 2006-11-19 22:01:32 UTC 
what do you mean ?

%{buildroot} is a blocker ?
Comment 4 Rex Dieter 2006-11-19 22:54:10 UTC 
> %{buildroot} is a blocker ?

To some reviewer, yes.  Fortunately, fixing it is easy.
Comment 5 Chitlesh GOORAH 2006-11-19 23:08:47 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> > %{buildroot} is a blocker ?
> 
> To some reviewer, yes.  Fortunately, fixing it is easy.

Ok!
Fixed to please Paragn:
Spec URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/kleansweep.spec
SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/kleansweep-0.2.9-1.src.rpm

However, I would like to document about this, any url ?
Comment 6 manuel wolfshant 2006-11-20 00:11:36 UTC 
The preferred value for %buildroot in FE is described at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1

Please note that the last link you have provided was probably meant to be
http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/kleansweep-0.2.9-2.src.rpm because you did
correctly increase the release tag in the spec file and recreate the new src.rpm
Comment 7 Chitlesh GOORAH 2006-11-20 00:26:00 UTC 
My bad, I've misunderstood the whole concept. lol

Updated:
Spec URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/kleansweep.spec
SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/kleansweep-0.2.9-3.src.rpm
Comment 8 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-11-20 04:21:11 UTC 
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
eb4530dc77fbe35ede8267e89275e5e9  kleansweep-0.2.9.tar.bz2
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ 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.
+ .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists
+ Used gtk-update-icon-cache correctly
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Desktop file installed succesfully
+ Desktop file is handled correclty in SPEC file.
+ GUI app
APPROVED.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.