[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2017-08-20 14:29:02 |2017-08-28 18:21:44



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0bfdb723ff

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-dd1fbf8208

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-20 14:29:02



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Robert Scheck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(space...@gmail.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #22 from Robert Scheck  ---
Robert-André, thank you very much for the review!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f81abe5e43

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #20 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/partclone

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
It's good now, package accepted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #18 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #17)
> One last minor thing : If the package is under multiple licenses, the
> licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec.
> 
> Since the breakdown is fairly complex, summarizes it to the best of your
> abilities.

I did it per internal "component", otherwise this will end up in a license
per file list as it seems. Hope this is good enough:

Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/partclone.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/partclone-0.3.5a-3.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #17 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
One last minor thing : If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing
breakdown must be documented in the spec.

Since the breakdown is fairly complex, summarizes it to the best of your
abilities.




Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
 later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "LGPL", "LGPL (v2.1)", "*No copyright* GPL (with incorrect
 FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)",
 "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GPL
 (v2)". 207 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/bob/packaging/review/partclone/review-
 partclone/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully 

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #16 from Robert Scheck  ---
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/partclone.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/partclone-0.3.5a-2.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) 
 ---
> if we have to rip thecode from the source tarball

I don't think this is necessary.

> we could build the "binary" in question ourself and ship it as %SOURCE1
ourself

Honestly I'm not certain what is the correct procedure in this case, maybe you
should ask on fedora-devel for opinions.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #14 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) from comment #13)
> You already said it, we can't ship exfat-utils, so we can't activate support
> for it.

I am sorry for being unprecise: My thoughts were about if we have to rip the
code from the source tarball, thus if we have to create a custom tarball, e.g.
like the openssl package.

> >fail-mbr.bin.orig
> As far as I know, we can't ship prepackaged binaries, so we must built it in
> the SPEC. If it's only available on i386/x86_64, use the appropriate %ifarch
> macro.

Well, we could build the "binary" in question ourself and ship it as %SOURCE1
ourself (that's what Debian does); in the end it's a simple small binary with
mostly NULL bytes (< 450 bytes in total), thus more or less easy to verify.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) 
 ---
>raise your toughts regarding exFAT code/support

You already said it, we can't ship exfat-utils, so we can't activate support
for it.

>fail-mbr.bin.orig

As far as I know, we can't ship prepackaged binaries, so we must built it in
the SPEC. If it's only available on i386/x86_64, use the appropriate %ifarch
macro.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #12 from Robert Scheck  ---
I meant "thoughts", typo. Sorry.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #11 from Robert Scheck  ---
Could you please raise your toughts regarding exFAT code/support and
binary partclone-0.3.5a/fail-mbr/fail-mbr.bin.orig as well?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) 
 ---
>I could wrap it like

Please do

> You noticed the mentioned upstream ticket which also references a patch 
suggestion by (another) Fedora contributor?

I did, but you should include it while waiting for upstream to include it.
You'll drop the patch when they do.


> How about: GPL+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+

That's kay like this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #9 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) from comment #8)
>  - The Group: tag is not used on Fedora. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

RHEL/CentOS 6 still uses the Group: tag by default, I could wrap it like:

%if 0%{?rhel} < 7
Group: …
%endif

>  - You should provide a patch to fix the incorrect FSF addresses where
> needed.

You noticed the mentioned upstream ticket which also references a patch 
suggestion by (another) Fedora contributor?

>  - The licence tag is incorrect, there's a wide variety of licences used in
> this package and it should be reflected in the tag and detailed. For
> reference:
>
> *No copyright* GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
> ---
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/btrfs/commands.h

This is GPLv2, not GPL+.

> BSD (3 clause)
> --
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/ffs/fs.h
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/sys/disklabel.h
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/ufs/dinode.h
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/ufs/fs.h
> 
> BSD (unspecified)
> -
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/libufs.h

This path of the source tree is not used/not built.

> GPL (v3 or later)
> -
> partclone-0.3.5a/fail-mbr/fail-mbr.S
> partclone-0.3.5a/gitlog-to-changelog
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/ntfsfixboot.c

Binary file fail-mbr* is raised in comment #2, gitlog-to-changelog is not
being used.

> GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
> 
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/btrfs/btrfs-list.c
[…]
> partclone-0.3.5a/src/btrfs/volumes.h

This is GPLv2, not GPL+.

How about: GPL+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+

Or, to respect partclone., more in detail:
(GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+) and
(GPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPL+ and LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+) and
(GPLv2+ and GPLv2 and LGPLv2+) and
(GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) 
 ---
Hello,


 - The Group: tag is not used on Fedora. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} should be replaced with %make_build

 - You should give a more meaningful name to the downloaded source with:
Source0:   
https://github.com/Thomas-Tsai/partclone/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Please use spaces instead of tabs

 - Please split your BR and R: one per line is better for diff.

 - Not needed:
BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

 - %clean is not needed in Fedora. You should remove it.

 - You should provide a patch to fix the incorrect FSF addresses where needed.

 - The licence tag is incorrect, there's a wide variety of licences used in
this package and it should be reflected in the tag and detailed. For reference:

*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)

partclone-0.3.5a/src/btrfs/crc32c.c

*No copyright* GPL (with incorrect FSF address)
---
partclone-0.3.5a/src/btrfs/commands.h

BSD (3 clause)
--
partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/ffs/fs.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/sys/disklabel.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/ufs/dinode.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/ufs/fs.h

BSD (unspecified)
-
partclone-0.3.5a/src/ufs/libufs.h

GPL
---
partclone-0.3.5a/po/Makefile.in.in
partclone-0.3.5a/src/btrfs/ulist.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/btrfs/ulist.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/atomic.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/cache.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/cache.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/command.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/init.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/init.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/input.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/kmem.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/libxfs.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/libxfs_api_defs.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/libxfs_io.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/libxfs_priv.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/libxlog.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/linux.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/list.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/logitem.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/path.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/project.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/rdwr.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/trans.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/util.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_alloc.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_alloc_btree.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_alloc_btree.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_arch.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_attr.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_attr_leaf.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_attr_remote.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_attr_remote.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_attr_sf.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_bit.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_bit.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_bmap.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_bmap.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_bmap_btree.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_bmap_btree.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_btree.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_btree.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_btree_trace.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_da_btree.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_da_format.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_da_format.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2_block.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2_data.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2_node.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2_priv.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dir2_sf.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_format.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_ialloc.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_inode.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_inode_buf.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_inode_fork.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_log_format.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_log_recover.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_log_rlimit.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_metadump.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_mount.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_quota_defs.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_rtbitmap.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_sb.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_sb.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_shared.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_symlink_remote.c
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_trace.h
partclone-0.3.5a/src/xfs/xfs_trans.h

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Tadej Janež from comment #6)
> Maybe we could just continue the packaging effort here, you would just post
> your SRPM and SPEC file links

Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/partclone.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/partclone-0.3.5a-1.src.rpm

Points that are still open are exFAT support and how to handle fail-mbr.bin
on non-%{ix86} platforms.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #6 from Tadej Janež  ---
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #5)
> 
> If not, I would submit a new review request myself based on comment #1, given
> I care a lot about mentioned points (EPEL). Tadej, are you a packager, too?

Yes, I'm a packager and I can review your package.

Maybe we could just continue the packaging effort here, you would just post
your SRPM and SPEC file links?

If Eric is still interested he could do a review himself and become a
co-maintainer.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Tadej Janež from comment #4)
> Eric, are you still willing to package it?

If not, I would submit a new review request myself based on comment #1, given
I care a lot about mentioned points (EPEL). Tadej, are you a packager, too?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Tadej Janež  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||space...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(space...@gmail.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #4 from Tadej Janež  ---
I'm also interested in partclone.

Eric, are you still willing to package it?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck  ---
Eric, ping? Any thoughts or comments regarding my thoughts and comments?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895



--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck  ---
Oh, given partclone-0.3.5a/fail-mbr/fail-mbr.bin.orig is shipped by default
and also makes it into the RPM package...that is a binary file, that only can
be built on ix86/x86_64 hardware. Any suggestions? For Debian it seems that
they built the binary themself on ix86/x86_64 hardware and ship that now as a
part of their ...debian.tar.xz. Would that be acceptable for Fedora as well?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org