Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntfs-3g - Linux NTFS userspace driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210840 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-16 02:15 EST ------- 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review