[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Mar 18 17:46:49 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net> 2009-03-18 13:46:44 EDT ---
Thanks for the review.
(In reply to comment #1)
> ** FIX ** - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
> license.
> ** OK ** The file COPYING matches the spec License line.
> !! Warning !! The file PKG-INFO mentions as license GNU GPL which does not
> match GPLv3+
> !! Warning !! The source files do not match the license:
> # archiver.py
> #
> # Project: AutoArchive
> # License: GNU GPL
I changed the license to GPL+, removed the needless COPYING, and informed
upstream about the discrepancy.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1110082&aid=2691699&group_id=239510
> !! Warning !! Not all Requirements are listed - lzma seems to be used and is
> not part
> of the Packaging/FullExceptionList (it is up to you to decide).
%files section
added
> ** FIX ** - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
> $ file /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING: ASCII English text
>
> Keeping the original date/time of documentation file is probably a good idea
> (no guidelines about this)
>
> A simple solution :
> # Convert to utf-8
> for file in COPYING NEWS README README.sk; do
> mv $file timestamp
> iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 -o $file timestamp
> touch -r timestamp $file
> done
The files are already UTF-8, aren't they?
> Issues:
> - Would be nice to provide some example config-files with extention .aa
There is an example configuration mentioned in the README. Pinged upstream
about that
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2692252&group_id=239510&atid=1110082
> - command name "aa" does not remind me of "autoarchive", perhaps better
> use autoarchive
This is upstream's call and not the one of the package maintainers. I agree
with you that the name would be better 'autoarchive' than 'aa'.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2692266&group_id=239510&atid=1110082
> - The name autoarchiver is sometimes written as AutoArchiver. Why the
> difference?
The project is called 'AutoArchive' and the application stuff 'autoarchive'.
For me this seams a normal way to go. 'AutoArchive' for the python stuff is
feasible, from my point of view.
> - FIX the above mentioned items
done
> - Summary line (in spec file) is a bit simplistic "Simple backup tool".
> Does not give me any hint about autoarchiver. Please give a better
> summary.
As fare as I know is the intention of the summary to provide only very basic
information about the tool. But changed a bit.
Here are the updated files:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list