Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468633
Summary: Review Request: wput - A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: itamar@ispbrasil.com.br QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput.spec SRPM URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput-0.6.1-1.0.fc9.src.rpm
Description:
wput is a command-line ftp-client that looks like wget but instead of downloading, uploads files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers.
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=468633
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |wput
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=468633
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841
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=468633
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fabian@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-27 10:07:32 EDT --- Just some small comments on your spec file
- Release: 1.0%{?dist} - Just '1' is enough. Next release will be '2'
- You can use the macro %{name} everywhere where you used 'wput'
- %files section - '%defattr(-,root,root)', the usual one is '%defattr(-,root,root,-)'
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#.25fi... - Is it not enough just to use '%{_bindir}/%{name}' insteed of '%attr(0755, root, root) %{_bindir}/wput' ?
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=468633
--- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-10-27 13:45:57 EDT --- please look again
http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput-0.6.1-2.fc9.src.rpm
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=468633
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-27 17:17:02 EDT --- If this is your first package you need to seek a sponsor. I can't sponsor you but I can do the review.
Please visit the following pages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Create_Your_Review_Re... (-> FE-NEEDSPONSOR ;-) )
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=468633
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-27 17:30:11 EDT --- Again some comments on your spec file
- Source: - Please use 'Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar....' instead of a link to a mirror https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
- Patch1: wput-destdir.patch - The first patch is 'Patch0'
- %changelog - To every release bump belongs an changelog entry. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
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=468633
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-27 17:32:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
(-> FE-NEEDSPONSOR ;-) )
Forget this...you added the blocker already.
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=468633
--- Comment #6 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-10-27 17:49:09 EDT --- fixed
Can I start bumping versions later ?
http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput-0.6.1-3.fc9.src.rpm
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=468633
--- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-10-27 17:57:58 EDT ---
The first patch is 'Patch0'
Just for the record: that's more a cosmetic / pedantic problem. rpm is very happy to use anything, as long as the definition of the patch (the PatchN line) and it's usage (the %PatchN line) correspond. But yes, for a first submission looking nice (from a cosmetic point of view) is important and could be a decision factor.
More important: please preserve the older changelog entries when you/add make changes and create new releases of the spec. I am looking at releases 2 and 3 right now and I would have liked to know what was changed compared to the first ones. Especially as the _current_ changelog (the one from release 3) still says "Initial package."
A correct changelog would have probably had something along:
* Thu Oct 27 2008 Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br - 0.6.1-3 - start counting patches from 0
* Thu Oct 27 2008 Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br - 0.6.1-2 - fixes %%files, consistent use of macros<, other relevant changes, if any>
* Thu Oct 26 2008 Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br - 0.6.1-1.0 - Initial package.
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=468633
--- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-27 18:13:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
Can I start bumping versions later ?
I'm not talking about the version of the source. The 'Release' is for the spec file.
Again changelog...in your lasted spec file is only *ONE* changelog entry. If your Release is '3' there have to be '3' entries. Your spec file should contain. For the reviewers it's much easier to keep track of the changes.
%changelog * Mon Oct 27 2008 Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br - 0.6.1-3 - Fix Source0 - Rename Patch1 to Patch0
* Mon Oct 27 2008 Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br - 0.6.1-2 - Changes acc. #468633 Comment #1
* Thu Oct 26 2008 Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br - 0.6.1-1 - Initial package.
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=468633
--- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-27 18:43:06 EDT --- Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=908019
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=468633
--- Comment #10 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-10-27 19:09:45 EDT --- My nose smells missing BR: gnutls-devel. And I have a feeling that gettext is needed, too , despite the fact that the locale files get created (the configure script complains about missing gettext)
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=468633
--- Comment #11 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-27 20:05:09 EDT --- gettext is definitely missing and adding gnutls will be a good idea ;-)
BuildRequires: gettext BuildRequires: gnutls-devel
Itamar, take a look into the log at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=908022&name=build.log
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=468633
--- Comment #12 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-10-27 23:19:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
gettext is definitely missing and adding gnutls will be a good idea ;-)
BuildRequires: gettext BuildRequires: gnutls-devel
Done
http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/wput/wput-0.6.1-4.fc9.src.rpm
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=468633
--- Comment #13 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-28 04:47:34 EDT --- Thanks for the changes. I will make a full review today.
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=468633
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fabian@bernewireless.net
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=468633
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
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=468633
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=468633
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 |
--- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-10-28 14:01:27 EDT --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR)
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=468633
--- Comment #15 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-10-28 18:55:21 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: F9/i386 [x] Rpmlint output: Source RPM: [fab@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint wput* 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Binary RPMs: [fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint -i wput* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root [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. License type: GPLv2+ [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM upstream: 67125acab1d520e5d2a0429cd9cf7fc379987f30d5bbed0b0e97b92b554fcc13 wput-0.6.1.tgz SHA1SUM of Source RPM: 67125acab1d520e5d2a0429cd9cf7fc379987f30d5bbed0b0e97b92b554fcc13 wput-0.6.1.tgz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: F9/i386 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. Tested F9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=910045 Tested F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=910050 [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane.
I see no further blocker, package APPROVED
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=468633
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
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=468633
--- Comment #16 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-10-29 17:01:48 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: wput Short Description: A utility for uploading files or whole directories to remote ftp-servers Owners: itamarjp Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: fabian
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=468633
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |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=468633
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-10-29 17:25:10 EDT --- cvs done.
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=468633
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-10-30 13:40:47 EDT --- wput-0.6.1-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wput-0.6.1-4.fc9
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=468633
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-10-31 06:26:49 EDT --- wput-0.6.1-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update wput'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-9330
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=468633
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-19 09:46:36 EDT --- wput-0.6.1-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=468633
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=468633
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #21 from Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-10-01 18:40:26 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: wput New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: itamarjp
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=468633
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #22 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-10-03 17:32:09 EDT --- cvs done.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org