[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-31 09:20:58 EDT --- Ping? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-01-02 08:33:22 EDT --- It shouldn't block the package, but it can block sponsorship if the sponsor wishes it to, which I do. I like to see 1-3 practice reviews. If this package is hugely critical, an existing maintainer can take it over if the submitter is unable to become sponsored for whatever reason. I don't see anything glaring that would stop Ugo being sponsored, I just like to have some indication of understanding of the guidelines, beyond the construction of one package. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com 2009-01-02 09:16:41 EDT --- Jon, Mamoru - thanks for your responses, I can certainly understand that point of view. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com 2009-01-01 08:26:19 EDT --- Hi Jon - there doesn't seem to be any requirement in the sponsorship guidelines that a new contributor must perform a few unofficial reviews before being sponsored. I agree that it is desirable, but it doesn't seem to be mandatory? I don't think performing unofficial package reviews should block this package from being approved and imported, therefore. OTOH, perhaps the submitter has vanished. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-01 09:25:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Hi Jon - there doesn't seem to be any requirement in the sponsorship guidelines that a new contributor must perform a few unofficial reviews before being sponsored. I agree that it is desirable, but it doesn't seem to be mandatory? See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored#Sponsorship_model Actually it depends on the judgment of the people who is going to sponsor the new contributors. However for my case I always request new contributors to either submit anothere review request or do a pre-review of other person's review request, especially because - after getting sponsored he/she now can formally approve other person's review request - and the new contributor has to _maintain_ his/her packages on Fedora (of course the sponsor must support him/her, however basically it should be done by him/herself). -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-08 09:10:22 EDT --- Update? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #4 from Ugo Viti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-22 15:53:11 EDT --- So, of that, just fix the license tag. A few other things. The INSTALL mentioned some mandatory programs. A: You should probably determine the rpms that provide these, and Require them. B: Since you obviously cannot Require Oracle, you should either: i. Create synback-fedora-README.txt explaining that Oracle support is present but won't work unless Oracle is installed. Hi Jon, I just released 1.2.2 version of synbak. - Fixed the license tag (moved synbak from GPLv2 + GPLv3+) - Included the README.Fedora (about oracle support licensing) file into doc dir - Added all required extra rpm packages to the spec file let's me know if it's ok now. SRPM URL: http://www.initzero.it/products/opensource/synbak/download/synbak-1.2.2-1.fc9.src.rpm the spec file is included into srpm of course, I must provide an external version? Best Regards -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-22 16:19:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) So, of that, just fix the license tag. A few other things. The INSTALL mentioned some mandatory programs. A: You should probably determine the rpms that provide these, and Require them. B: Since you obviously cannot Require Oracle, you should either: i. Create synback-fedora-README.txt explaining that Oracle support is present but won't work unless Oracle is installed. Hi Jon, I just released 1.2.2 version of synbak. - Fixed the license tag (moved synbak from GPLv2 + GPLv3+) - Included the README.Fedora (about oracle support licensing) file into doc dir - Added all required extra rpm packages to the spec file let's me know if it's ok now. Looks good, but rename README.Fedora to synbak-README.fedora, so multiple SRPMs on dev systems won't clobber each other. SRPM URL: http://www.initzero.it/products/opensource/synbak/download/synbak-1.2.2-1.fc9.src.rpm the spec file is included into srpm of course, I must provide an external version? It's preferrred. I won't make a huge deal out of it, some reviewers will, so I usually do, since I use scripts to put my rpms on my webserver anyway. Best Regards Rename the readme, and the package itself is fine. Just need to see some review work, and I can sponsor and approve. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-22 16:20:56 EDT --- To clarify the review work, find several review requests, and complete the review process, but be sure to mention that you're not yet sponsored and cannot actually approve the package. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 --- Comment #7 from Ugo Viti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-22 16:55:12 EDT --- Looks good, but rename README.Fedora to synbak-README.fedora, so multiple SRPMs on dev systems won't clobber each other. Ok, I renamed to synbak-README.fedora and uploaded a new copy to SRPM URL: http://www.initzero.it/products/opensource/synbak/download/synbak-1.2.2-1.fc9.src.rpm and uploaded SPEC URL: http://www.initzero.it/products/opensource/synbak/download/synbak.spec To clarify the review work, find several review requests, and complete the review process, but be sure to mention that you're not yet sponsored and cannot actually approve the package. it's right, I'll make some reviews and post links here in the next days. Thank you, Best Regards -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398
Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-19 10:31:23 EDT ---
Official review. I am also willing to sponsor you, once this package is
approved. To that end, have you done any unoffical reviews of other's
packages? If so, please post links. If not, do a few, and post links.
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
Clean.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
Good.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
License tag should be GPLv2+ and CC-BY-SA.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
Good. Might want to limit the description to the first 7 lines. Your call.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
Good.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Good.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
NA, noarch.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
Good.
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
NA.
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
NA.
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
Good.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
Good.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
Good.
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
Good.
- MUST:
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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=433398 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||Synbak -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first
package, need sponsor)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433398
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-19 03:05 EST ---
(this is an unofficial review)
[+] spec file seems correct
[+] rpmlint is silent
[+] package build in mock
[+] program works proprely
[-] you should use %{?dist} in Release tag:
Release:1%{?dist}
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433398 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-19 06:56 EST --- Hi, thanks for the reply... Fixed the spec file and released build 2: Spec URL: http://www.initzero.it/products/opensource/synbak/download/synbak.spec SRPM URL: http://www.initzero.it/products/opensource/synbak/download/synbak-1.2.1-2.fc8.src.rpm Best Regards -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433398] Review Request: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor)
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: synbak - Synbak Universal Backup System (first package, need sponsor) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433398 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
