[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 #6 from Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net>  2009-07-26 17:16:05 EDT ---
Thank you guys. 

(In reply to comment #4)
> MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. NEEDSWORK
> -Please add COPYING to the doc section

After the review of Gratien I removed COPYING.  But the fixed version came back
with 0.1.2.  COPYING added

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Notes:
> > -Your package should BuildRequire: python-devel instead of python  
> 
> Actually, python-setuptools-devel pulls in python-devel, so that's not a
> problem. But it's better to BR it exclusively.

For newer Fedora releases that's true.  For releases < F-11 the guidelines told
another story.  Changed.

> (The ./ in front of setup.py is unnecessary when run via python.)

Removed

> I suggest using autoarchive instead of %{name} in the %files section for
> consistency.

Changed

> Requires: lzma is not enough IMHO. The package seems to need also tar, gzip and
> bzip2.  

Yes, you are right, the 'archiver class' shows points that let indicate that
all this tools are needed.

Here are the updated files:

Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11.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.