[Bug 241553] Review Request: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Aug 29 10:50:18 UTC 2007


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 at till.name changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |opensource at till.name




------- Additional Comments From opensource at 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.spec
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-f21ae23bf2f278444e2c385463cfa74a502396b8

- Source0 should be:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
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


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the package-review mailing list