[Bug 241553] New: Review Request: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
Summary: Review Request: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jspaleta@gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/safekeep.spec SRPM URL: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/safekeep-1.0.0-2.fc...
Description: SafeKeep is a client/server backup system which enhances the power of rdiff-backup with simple, centralized configuration.
Note for reviewers: The safekeep-server package creates a user named safekeep with the home directory /var/lib/safekeep with special ownership and permissions inside which ssh keys are kept. rpmlint flags this an an errenously flags this as an error.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From sebastien.prudhomme@gmail.com 2007-06-02 18:11 EST ------- + simple build + mock build
- rpmlint safekeep-server-1.0.0-2.noarch.rpm (correct at least the conffile-without-noreplace-flag warning)
W: safekeep-server spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/safekeep-server-1.0.0/safekeep-test E: safekeep-server non-standard-uid /var/lib/safekeep safekeep E: safekeep-server non-standard-gid /var/lib/safekeep safekeep E: safekeep-server non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/safekeep 0750 E: safekeep-server non-standard-uid /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh safekeep E: safekeep-server non-standard-gid /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh safekeep W: safekeep-server hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh E: safekeep-server non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh 0700 W: safekeep-server hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh W: safekeep-server conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/safekeep/safekeep.conf W: safekeep-server doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/safekeep-server-1.0.0/safekeep-test /usr/bin/python W: safekeep-server dangerous-command-in-%post mv W: safekeep-server dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel
- openssh requirement seems not necessary (is yet required by openssh-clients) - gecos field for the safekeep user ("Useful comment about the purpose of this account") - as this seems to be the a new package for Fedora, i don't understand the migration of conf files from /etc/safekeep.d to /etc/safekeep/backup.d - man pages for safekeep.backup and safekeep.conf should be in the safekeep-server rpm
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-06-06 17:51 EST ------- FYI, I'm going in to have my wisdom teeth removed on Friday morning. As a result I'm going to be losing a chunk of discretionary time over the weekend. I don't expect to be able to get back to working on this for a week or so as I play catch up from the downtime.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-06-08 17:48 EST ------- The 'openssh' requirement is needed since we make use of 'ssh-keygen' and that exists in 'openssh', not in 'openssh-clients'. That being the case, I think it's better to be explicit instead of relying on an implicit dependency (openssh-clients depends on openssh) that may or may not hold true in the future.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
mricon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mricon@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From mricon@gmail.com 2007-06-27 09:42 EST ------- Jef: are you still taking care of with this? If you're too busy, I can take this to the finish.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-06-27 09:56 EST ------- Folks, just for the record the latest version of safekeep (1.0.1) fixes all the above mentioned problems. I believe it is ready for inclusion into Fedora without any need for additional patches.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-06-27 10:27 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
Jef: are you still taking care of with this? If you're too busy, I can take this to the finish.
I'm at a conference this week, with limited net access, so I can't do much this week. If you want to step in as the lead maintainer that would be okay with me. I've been working close with dimi upstream to get everything working, including using a nologin shell for the default user. The latest upstream rpms should address everything that needs to be fixed. This will never have a clean rpmlint output because the user that is created uses a non-default location...to hold generated ssh keys and whatnot.
-jef"summer conference season, a boon and a curse to productivity"spaleta
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From mricon@gmail.com 2007-06-27 10:36 EST ------- No worries -- since you've invested so much time in it, I'll wait until you have a spare moment. Cheers!
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-07-03 12:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
- as this seems to be the a new package for Fedora, i don't understand the
migration of conf files from /etc/safekeep.d to /etc/safekeep/backup.d
I'll say more concerning the other items later tonight....but the migration stuff is there primary to help users transition from previous rpm versions as provided by upstream. I've been working closely with upstream to develop the rpm version for a number of minor releases. The goal with transition scripts is to make sure that fedora users who were previously using upstream rpms can easily migrate to the fedora rpms once they hit the repos.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-07-03 14:42 EST ------- Jeff,
Thank you for the clarification. However, since we're past the big "1.0" release, I have decided to remove the migration scripts, since those were meat to help people migrate from the format used by the very first release. I am quite sure all affected people have upgraded already, and so to avoid any discussion on the topic I just removed them in 1.0.1. They were meant as a temporary solution anyway, and this is a time as good as other to remove them.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-07-07 13:00 EST ------- New 1.0.1-2 srpm and spec file now available. http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.1-2/safekeep-1.... http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.1-2/safekeep.sp... Binaries in: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.1-2/F-7/ http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.1-2/devel/
The new srpm/spec/binaries remove the migration scripts and the manpages have been moved to the server subpackage as per comment #1.
Rpmlint runs clean for the common and client subpackages. The server subpackage still illicits messages from rpmlint due to the safekeep user using /var/lib/safekeep/ for its home directory to hold generated ssh keypairs.
E: safekeep-server non-standard-uid /var/lib/safekeep safekeep E: safekeep-server non-standard-gid /var/lib/safekeep safekeep bugus errors. /var/lib/safekeep is being as the home directory for the generated safekeep user. There examples of system user home directories in /var/lib/ already including the rpm user
E: safekeep-server non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/safekeep 0750 E: safekeep-server non-standard-uid /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh safekeep E: safekeep-server non-standard-gid /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh safekeep W: safekeep-server hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh E: safekeep-server non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh 0700 W: safekeep-server hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh Bugus errors and warnings, the .ssh directory is configured thusly to work correctly with the default sshd configuration for fedora.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From mricon@gmail.com 2007-08-28 15:44 EST ------- Ping?
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-08-28 16:27 EST ------- I'm just waiting for a reviewer comment at this point. This isn't assigned to a reviewer currently.
I was going to go hunting for a reviewer next week if someone doesn't step up this week.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource@till.name
------- Additional Comments From opensource@till.name 2007-08-29 06:50 EST ------- I cannot download the current spec file:
$ curl -I http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.1-2/safekeep.sp... HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden [...]
The srpm works. Here are some first observations: - GPL is not a valid value for the license tag anymore: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-f21ae23bf2f...
- Source0 should be: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar.... not _pr_downloads...
- the client subpackage seems to be empty, so imho you should rename the common package to client and let the server package depend on the client. Also it seems to be odd that the client package has a lot of Requires
- Afaik there is no need to package "AUTHORS COPYING LICENSE" multiple times, packaging it in the client (common) package should be enough.
- does this "Requires: safekeep-common = %{PACKAGE_VERSION}" really work? I cannot see where PACKAGE_VERSION is defined and the guidelines mention %{version}-%{release}" instead.
- every %files section has to start with a %defattr(...) line, but only the %files section for common has one
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-09-06 23:06 EST ------- Thanks for the review Till!
Regarding the stub client package, I have considered eliminating it, but I'm afraid this would just complicate matters going forward, for the following reasons: * our plans will require that separate package in the near future, so eliminating it just to add it a bit later on will just make a mess of deps. * the Requires: section is different for the client, and collapsing things into a single package will pull in things that are not required on the server/client. Overall, I think we're better off with the additional package.
As for the rest of your comments, they are easy to address, I'll do so in the next minor release.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-09-07 19:34 EST ------- I have just released version 1.0.2 that addresses (most of) the issues mentioned above (except for the -client package, as explained above):
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/safekeep/safekeep-1.0.2-1.fc7.src.rpm?use_m...
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-09-07 20:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15)
Okay I'll take a look at it tonite. For those of you playing along. I'm working as closely as possible with Dimi as the upstream developer to keep the fedora packaging in sync with the upstream. I'm still expecting to act as the maintainer for the Fedora packages, and the gate-keeper to the bits in Fedora cvs until Dimi gets Fedora contributor status and we can share maintainership duties in Fedora space for this package.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From opensource@till.name 2007-09-08 01:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16)
Okay I'll take a look at it tonite.
Then please assign the bug to you and set the fedora-review flag to "?".
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From opensource@till.name 2007-09-08 01:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
Okay I'll take a look at it tonite.
Then please assign the bug to you and set the fedora-review flag to "?".
Forget this, I was confused and it is too early here. :-)
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-09-08 19:19 EST ------- Okay, updated urls for the spec and srpm being submitted for review. Essentially the same as Dimi's upstream spec from comment 15.
Spec: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.2-1/safekeep.sp... SRPM: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.2-1/safekeep-1.... F-7 noarch RPMS: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.2-1/F7/
All remaining rpmlint errors are the result of using the /var/lib/safekeep directory as the home directory for the safekeep user and including a .ssh sub-directory for ssh keys. As previously discussed in earlier comments, these errors are erroneous for this atypical but appropriate usage of /var/lib/safekeep as a home directory.
The client package is still essentially a metapackage due to the difference in the server and client dependency chain. Though as upstream has mentioned, there are plans to add additional client package payload so keeping it as a separate sub-package package now keeps from having to complicate things later as more client-side development is added.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-10-03 22:50 EST ------- Folks, any news on this item? It's getting a bit long in the tooth...
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tummy.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-10-04 12:32 EST ------- I'd be happy to give this a formal review in the next few days here unless someone beats me to it.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-10-05 16:29 EST ------- Look for a full review in a few here.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-10-05 17:17 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License (GPLv2+) See below- License field in spec matches See below- License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: d37ae719280f654d5bad27fa23ce79bd safekeep-1.0.2.tar.gz d37ae719280f654d5bad27fa23ce79bd safekeep-1.0.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. What is the license here? The LICENSE file in the source says GPLv2.1 The spec has GPLv2+ The scripts themselves don't have any mention of a license. The web site says GPL http://safekeep.sourceforge.net/license.shtml
Ideally can you get upstream to say if it's GPLv2 only, GPLv2+, or GPL+? A comment in the scripts themselves would be good. Also matching up so that all the above say the same thing would be good.
2. This is 1.0.2, but the website seems to have 1.0.1 as latest. Is this a preview release or they just haven't updated the web site yet?
3. rpmlint says:
safekeep.src: W: strange-permission safekeep.spec 0600 safekeep-client.noarch: W: no-documentation safekeep-server.noarch: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/safekeep safekeep safekeep-server.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/lib/safekeep safekeep safekeep-server.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/safekeep 0750 safekeep-server.noarch: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh safekeep safekeep-server.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh safekeep safekeep-server.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh safekeep-server.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh 0700 safekeep-server.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/safekeep/.ssh
All can be ignored.
4. Perhaps you could include a README.fedora in the client subpackage explaining why it's currently empty?
5. The client subpackage has: Requires: openssh-server Requires: coreutils Requires: util-linux
Are those really required? Why?
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-10-05 18:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #23)
See below - License (GPLv2+) See below- License field in spec matches See below- License file included in package Issues:
- What is the license here?
The LICENSE file in the source says GPLv2.1 The spec has GPLv2+ The scripts themselves don't have any mention of a license. The web site says GPL http://safekeep.sourceforge.net/license.shtml
Ideally can you get upstream to say if it's GPLv2 only, GPLv2+, or GPL+? A comment in the scripts themselves would be good. Also matching up so that all the above say the same thing would be good.
- This is 1.0.2, but the website seems to have 1.0.1 as latest.
Is this a preview release or they just haven't updated the web site yet?
The website itself needs to be updated. But sf.net project space has 1.0.2 listed as the most current release.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=185128
- Perhaps you could include a README.fedora in the client subpackage
explaining why it's currently empty?
Easily done. I'll get to it tomorrow.
- The client subpackage has:
Requires: openssh-server Requires: coreutils Requires: util-linux
Are those really required? Why?
okay.. the way this works is that the safekeep server process pulls updates from clients over ssh. The server sets up special ssh keys on the client specifically for this so the rdiff-backup process can be automated using passphrase-less ssh keys constrained to run only the rdiff-backup commands. So the client needs a running ssh server. I believe coreutils and util-linux are needed for helper commands that allow the server to interact with the client to setup the specialized ssh keys. I can dig into the code tomorrow and confirm the specifics of that.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-10-07 09:59 EST -------
- What is the license here?
GPLv2+. I'll try to add necessary notices.
- This is 1.0.2, but the website seems to have 1.0.1 as latest.
Is this a preview release or they just haven't updated the web site yet?
Website needs an update.
- The client subpackage has:
Requires: openssh-server Requires: coreutils Requires: util-linux
Are those really required? Why?
Yes, they are. As Jeff explained, the client needs to be contacted by the server via SSH. It also may need su(1) to run the dump commands.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-10-09 20:15 EST ------- (In reply to comment #25)
- What is the license here?
GPLv2+. I'll try to add necessary notices.
Okay can you roll up a 1.0.3 release with the correct copyright notices in the source code files?
Yes, they are. As Jeff explained, the client needs to be contacted by the server via SSH. It also may need su(1) to run the dump commands.
I'll have a short README.fedora ready to roll tonite that touches on this to put into the docs section of srpm which includes your new tarball.
-jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-10-19 14:23 EST ------- I have just released 1.0.3 with a few fixes and the license added to the source files. I've also updated the website to reflect the new release too.
Please let me know if there are any other outstanding problems.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-10-19 19:40 EST ------- Okay the licensing situation looks clear to me now.
I'm adding a README.fedora document which reads:
Safekeep is designed such that the same script can be used on both the backup server (which initiates backups from clients), as well as on individual clients to handle client specific tasks such as dedicated ssh key generation and client-side backup processes such as dump.
As a result, on Fedora safekeep is packaged in such a way that Fedora clients which want to communicate with a safekeep managed backup server can choose to install the safekeep-client subpackage to ensure correct safekeep client configuration. This safekeep-client subpackage does not itself install any additional files at this time. But it does ensure that the correct client side applications are in place for safekeep managed backup services.
It is recommended that all computers acting as safekeep clients install the safekeep-client subpackage, even though at this time it is technically optional if the necessary components such as an ssh server, coreutils and util-linux are installed correctly on the client Fedora system. In future version of safekeep the safekeep-client package may become necessary for correct client operation.
Any objections to the text? -jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-10-19 20:05 EST ------- New spec and srpm with README.Fedora addition:
http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.3/safekeep.spec http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.3/safekeep-1.0....
No significant differences in the spec since the last 1.0.2 spec other than the addition of the Fedora README and the Licensing clarification as per the reviewers comments.
Binaries built against devel located in: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.3/devel/ no new rpmlint issues.
Balls in the reviewers court now. -jef
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-10-19 22:29 EST ------- All issues I saw are solved with the package from comment #29.
Thanks for the great work... this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this once it's been imported and built.
Also, since rdiff-backup is available in EPEL, do consider EPEL-4 and EPEL-5 branches if it otherwise works there. ;)
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
------- Additional Comments From dimi@lattica.com 2007-10-19 23:42 EST ------- Good stuff guys, thanks a lot for the prompt response! Please let me know if there's anything else that I need to do.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
jspaleta@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-10-20 16:37 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: safekeep Short Description: client/server backup system using rdiff-backup Owners: jspaleta Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
Note: I'm requesting F-8 to cover my bases, because I'm not sure if F-8 branching completed or not.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-10-21 12:42 EST ------- cvs done.
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: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
jspaleta@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@gmail.com 2007-10-22 14:26 EST ------- Built against devel, F-8 and F-7. I'm going to leave this in F-7 updates-testing until F8 comes out and the update tree for F8 is populated to make sure we have a working upgrade path.
EPEL will have to wait till I have a work related reason to maintain EPEL packages, which should be not so far away.
Closing ticket NextRelease -jef
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=241553
Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |frank@crawford.emu.id.au
--- Comment #35 from Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au 2011-10-29 22:30:54 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: safekeep New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: jspaleta frankcrawford
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=241553
Frank Crawford frank@crawford.emu.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
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=241553
--- Comment #36 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-10-31 08:04:46 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla