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(a)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=2691...
!! 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_i...
- 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_i...
- 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.