[Bug 250747] New: Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=250747

Summary: Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO
                    - bare metal recovery scripts & docs
           Product: Fedora
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: low
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],[e-mail]

This is my first package; sponsor, please.

Spec URL: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-...
SRPM URL: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-...
Description:

A set of scripts to back up and restore a minimal system for bare
metal restoration. They are useful on i386 systems. Patches for others
are welcome.

Install this package on clients, and the documentation package where
you want it.

This bug replaces bug 250315, which somehow got marked "closed".

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250747

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |177841
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250747

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-03 22:00 EST -------
*** Bug 250315 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250747

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-10 09:15 EST -------
New SRPM:
http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-...

The spec, revised, is at the same place:
http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-...

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250747

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-13 23:35 EST -------
I'm not sponsored, so this isn't official:

? - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
--> Seems more a set of scripts than documentation... although I could be
looking at what it does all wrong :P  Consider renaming after script-suite?
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK? - Spec has consistant macro usage.
--> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT could be macro-ified as %{buildroot}
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License is GPL
OK - License file is included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
NOT OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum
--> Source: e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4 Package:
e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4
OK - Package has correct buildroot.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
? - Changelog section is correct. 
--> Not sure if one should put such direct references to the specfile in
%changelog... but it's probably bad form to change the %changelog after the fact...

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250747

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-14 14:58 EST -------
Thank you, Mr. Boyle.
> ? - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
> --> Seems more a set of scripts than documentation... although I could be
> looking at what it does all wrong :P  Consider renaming after script-suite?

Hmmm. The current name is the name of the document at the Linux Documentation Project, and I figured that consistency would be a good idea. The main package is some of the scripts (more are to come), and the -doc subpackage is the original HOWTO in various formats. I could make the docs the main package and put the scripts into a -scripts subpackage, I suppose, but the current naming and subpackaging are consistent with current Fedora usage. I'm open to suggestions here.
> OK? - Spec has consistant macro usage.
> --> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT could be macro-ified as %{buildroot}

OK, done. It should show up in the next version.
> NOT OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum
> --> Source: e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4 Package:
> e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4

I'm not sure where that came from. In any case, it should go away as soon as I put new packages up on my server.
> ? - Changelog section is correct. 
> --> Not sure if one should put such direct references to the specfile in
> %changelog... but it's probably bad form to change the %changelog after the fact...

That was the reason for the new package version, and the sole change. As with this one.

Again, new SRPM: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/srpms/...

And the revised spec is at the usual: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-...

BTW, since my web page is pretty much automated, and comments for this bugzilla entry are not, the web page (http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO.html) is authoritative for the most recent version, not bugzilla.

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250747

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=250747

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
              Alias|                            |Linux-Complete-Backu

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=250747

Thomas Janssen  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(charlescurley@cha
                   |                            |rlescurley.com)

--- Comment #5 from Thomas Janssen   2009-10-03 17:09:27 EDT ---
Are you still interested in this or is it dead?

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=250747

Charles Curley  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(charlescurley@cha |
                   |rlescurley.com)             |

--- Comment #6 from Charles Curley   2009-10-03 20:03:38 EDT ---
It's dead.

[Bug 250747] Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=250747

Thomas Janssen  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
             Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)      |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)
         Resolution|                            |NOTABUG
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-