[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=473835





--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net>  2009-03-18 13:46:44 EDT ---
Thanks for the review.

(In reply to comment #1)
> ** FIX ** - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
> license.
> ** OK **   The file COPYING matches the spec License line.
> !! Warning !!   The file PKG-INFO mentions as license GNU GPL which does not
> match GPLv3+
> !! Warning !!   The source files do not match the license:
> # archiver.py
> #
> # Project: AutoArchive
> # License: GNU GPL

I changed the license to GPL+, removed the needless COPYING, and informed
upstream about the discrepancy.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1110082&aid=2691699&group_id=239510

> !! Warning !! Not all Requirements are listed - lzma seems to be used and is
> not part
>   of the Packaging/FullExceptionList (it is up to you to decide).
%files section

added

> ** FIX ** - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
> $ file /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING: ASCII English text
> 
> Keeping the original date/time of documentation file is probably a good idea
> (no guidelines about this)
> 
> A simple solution :
>      # Convert to utf-8
>      for file in COPYING NEWS README README.sk; do
>        mv $file timestamp
>        iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 -o $file timestamp
>        touch -r timestamp $file
>      done

The files are already UTF-8, aren't they?

> Issues:
> - Would be nice to provide some example config-files with extention .aa

There is an example configuration mentioned in the README. Pinged upstream
about that
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2692252&group_id=239510&atid=1110082

> - command name "aa" does not remind me of "autoarchive", perhaps better
>   use autoarchive

This is upstream's call and not the one of the package maintainers.  I agree
with you that the name would be better 'autoarchive' than 'aa'.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2692266&group_id=239510&atid=1110082

> - The name autoarchiver is sometimes written as AutoArchiver. Why the
>   difference?

The project is called 'AutoArchive' and the application stuff 'autoarchive'. 
For me this seams a normal way to go. 'AutoArchive' for the python stuff is
feasible, from my point of view. 

> - FIX the above mentioned items

done

> - Summary line (in spec file) is a bit simplistic "Simple backup tool".
>   Does not give me any hint about autoarchiver. Please give a better
>   summary.  

As fare as I know is the intention of the summary to provide only very basic
information about the tool.  But changed a bit.


Here are the updated files:

Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.