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: ntfsprogs - NTFS filesystem libraries and utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211698 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-21 02:24 EST ------- OK, I was able to create an NTFS filesystem on a USB stick, view it using the tools, mount it via ntfs-3g, and access the files on a windows machine. I was able to get rid of the rpath via the usual method: BR: libtool, add "LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool" to the make line, and delete any .a files that pop up. After that, rpmlint is happy. Any reason why you have the BuildRequires: down in the -gnomevfs subpackage declaration? There is a test suite, it looks like, but trying to run it produces The libntfs test code has been configured out of this release. ./configure --enable-test and rebuild. I did that and the tests do pass. I'm not sure what this changes; an additional executable (/usr/bin/runlist) gets installed but I'm not sure if that's all. Is it reasonable to enable encryption? * source files match upstream: 23160eb8d34abe3d2a88cd6d054faa47 ntfsprogs-1.13.1.tar.gz * 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. X rpmlint has valid complaints (rpath) * final provides and requires are sane: ntfsprogs-1.13.1-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libntfs.so.9()(64bit) ntfsprogs = 1.13.1-1.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libntfs.so.9()(64bit) ntfsprogs-devel-1.13.1-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libntfs-gnomevfs.so.1()(64bit) ntfsprogs-devel = 1.13.1-1.fc6 = libntfs-gnomevfs.so.1()(64bit) libntfs.so.9()(64bit) ntfsprogs = 1.13.1-1.fc6 ntfsprogs-gnomevfs-1.13.1-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm config(ntfsprogs-gnomevfs) = 1.13.1-1.fc6 libntfs-gnomevfs.so.1()(64bit) ntfsprogs-gnomevfs = 1.13.1-1.fc6 = config(ntfsprogs-gnomevfs) = 1.13.1-1.fc6 libntfs-gnomevfs.so.1()(64bit) libntfs.so.9()(64bit) ntfsprogs = 1.13.1-1.fc6 ? %check is not present; there is a test suite but I'm not sure if it's feasible to run it. The tests pass when run manually (all files files are identical). * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * 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