[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-21 16:33:05 EDT --- sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-21 16:38:02 EDT --- sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 10:03:20 EDT --- sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc9 -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 10:02:08 EDT --- sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc10 -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-18 17:28:20 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-17 14:29:48 EDT --- Thank you Christoph New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sbackup Short Description: Simple Backup Suite for desktop use Owners: cassmodiah Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-17 14:26:47 EDT --- Let me see: sbackup-0.10.5-5 - owns the cron files - requires gvfs - has nice desktop files - includes updated patches that now work as expected and as we figured out on irc. I see no other blockers and issues and therefore the package is APPROVED. -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462
--- Comment #8 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16
18:41:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
- Please remove SystemSettings from the desktop files again, it's better for
comptatibility. Sorry for the noise, apart from that the desktop files are ok
now.
Okay! Done in -5
- rpmlint warning regarding usermode can be ignored, but the changelog could
be
a little better, e. g.: Require usermode-gtk instead of usermode for the
password dialog. But this is really trivial.
Okay, you are right.
- on the fly creation of files: Your decision, you are the one to maintain the
package. ;)
Okay thank you
- (How) Do we own the cron files?
mkdir -p
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/{cron.d,cron.daily,cron-hourly,cron.monthly,cron.weekly}/
touch
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/{cron.d,cron.daily,cron-hourly,cron.monthly,cron.weekly}/%{name}
%ghost %{_sysconfdir}/cron*/%{name}
this should do the trick...
- Can you explain the makefile.patch a little? Why are you preventing
installation of the desktop files and the locales?
i changed this part, completely! I hope you'll like it.
The patch for the makefile is now only for the settings of the directories and
the permission of the configfile. The makefile is damn ugly and almost
unusuable. I made a mix of patching makefile and installation via spec. this
was very ugly, too...
locales:
there are unofficial translations which are not listed in the makefile, but
shipped with sbackup.
why are they unofficial?
These translation were made by the ubuntu-community (this project is an Ubuntu
project) so they are not made by the upstream team and are unofficial.
I added the others to use all available locales. I realized the installation of
the locales with a sed command.
desktop files:
Now the original desktop files will be deleted and the new ones will installed.
Commenting out the desktopfiles in the makefile was a bad idea.
- Provides: gvfs = 1.0 looks bogus to me
yes, you are right. This is a bogus. I removed it in -5
SPEC: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup.spec
SRPM:
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup-0.10.5-5.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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 18:56:22 EDT --- - Timestamp of Source0 is fixed. - Please remove SystemSettings from the desktop files again, it's better for comptatibility. Sorry for the noise, apart from that the desktop files are ok now. - rpmlint warning regarding usermode can be ignored, but the changelog could be a little better, e. g.: Require usermode-gtk instead of usermode for the password dialog. But this is really trivial. - on the fly creation of files: Your decision, you are the one to maintain the package. ;) - (How) Do we own the cron files? - Can you explain the makefile.patch a little? Why are you preventing installation of the desktop files and the locales? - Provides: gvfs = 1.0 looks bogus to me -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #6 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-05 11:46:18 EDT --- Issues: - Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps I downloaded it again. Now it should be right - Desktop files: - paths are hardcoded - key Categories is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing character - Categories are IMO not correct. Suggestion: sbackup-restore = System;Utility;Filesystem;Archiving;GNOME;GTK; sbackup-conf = System;Settings;SystemSettings;GNOME;GTK; In case of doubt see http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html - add GenericNames for KDE compatibility. Use the window title Restore files/directories, Backup Properties - please add (at least German) Translations for the keys, e. g. GenericName[de]=Dateien/Verzeichnisse wiederherstellen Should now meet your requirements - Requires: usermode-gtk for the password dialog rpmlint says sbackup.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode should be okay because usermode-gtk requires usermode - Use global pam config? #%PAM-1.0 authinclude config-util account include config-util session include config-util Okay, i changed it. - I suggest you include pam config as separate sources instead of creating them on the fly. I think creating them on the fly is very beautiful, because there are no hardcoded paths - include an initscript for sbackupd? not relevant, because sbackupd will be controled by a crontab, created by simple backup config - What are the Exclude statements for? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Unnecessary_Byte_compilation SPEC: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup.spec SRPM: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup-0.10.5-4.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03
20:15:28 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR 9050675dce622f3983571eb094ca60ec sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc10.src.rpm
OK - MUST: ]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc11.*
sbackup.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 76)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
can be ignored, see comment # 4.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- Timestamp of Source0 does not match
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 0d754b72da3b5cadf6de203cdf7afe13
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package contains code.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
FIX - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file that is properly installed with desktop-file-install in
the %install section, but there are some issues with the desktop files, see
below.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: The scriptlets used are must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
Issues:
- Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
- Desktop files:
- paths are hardcoded
- key Categories is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing
character
- Categories are IMO not
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #3 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-27 08:13:50 EDT --- Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc10.src.rpm ah, i found the problem and updated the spec above. no new changelog, just a non-mentionable typo. I hope this would do the job. -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #4 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-27 11:47:45 EDT --- Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=954509 rpmlint output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlintsetuptree sbackup.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 75) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. the columns in the pam-files are seperated with tabs. the spec itself is tabfree... -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-26 18:15:34 EDT --- i have a little problem with consolehelper and need a little help. Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc10.src.rpm i can't integrate consolehelper on this way, i can't get authentication as root. -- 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 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
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=468462 --- Comment #1 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-01 09:39:14 EDT --- Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup-0.10.5-2.fc10.src.rpm I think this would be a good package for EPEL. -- 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
