Bug 226380
| Summary: | Merge Review: rsync | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | ed, fenlason, matthias, redhat-bugzilla, ssorce | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | redhat:
fedora-review+
|
||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-01-12 21:10:26 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 20:52:44 UTC
Hi there, here's a quick review: good: + source matches upstream + license is OK and correctly listed + spec looks clean/read-able needswork: - please remove the trailing '.' from Summary - please add "URL: http://rsync.samba.org/" - please change the Source: URL so it works with "spectool -g" such as: Source: http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync-%{version}.tar.gz - please consider adding %{?dist} to Release - please delete the Prefix: entry - please use the preferred BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - rpmlint reports a few additional warnings (mostly repeats of above): http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/rsync-2.6.9-1.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log Assigning to the actual reviewer, and changing to ASSIGNED instead of leaving NEW, since according to the "fedora-review" flag, the formal review has started. Created attachment 305156 [details]
Patch to reduce rpmlint warnings, add URL.
I think this review is out of date and could be closed. It appears to be Re:
rsync 2.6.9, which is out of date (F9 has 3.0.2).
I've attached a patch that could still go in to fix some rpmlint warnings and
implement other suggestions in this review.
Looks like Simo Sorce <ssorce> is the current rsync maintainer; adding hereby to Cc. Created attachment 327903 [details]
Patch for rsync.spec to make rpmlint silent
Simo, can you please apply this patch to rsync? It will solve the
most review issues so that we maybe can finish this soon. One
rpmlint "issue" seems to be left, that can be ignored, %config()
is not worse in %changelog, it is not expanded anyway.
As Ed made no review noise for nearly two years, I'm now and hereby silently overtaking the review. I think, the patch #327903 should bring us to the way of succeeding the review hopefully very soon. Simo, please take action... Will do New f-10 and rawhide packages including this spec file patch have been built in koji today. Thank you, Simo. Dumb question from my side: Is there a special reason for following release tag usage: rsync-3.0.5-1.fc10 rsync-3.0.5-0.fc11 Why don't have both the same release? Was there some special reason? No special reason, I did a mistake in rsync-3.0.5-0.fc10 so I had to bump up to re-tag and build :/ Package looks from a packagers view good to me, so: APPROVED. I just wanted to point out that that release bump should have been to rsync-3.0.5-0.fc10.1 instead of rsync-3.0.5-1.fc10 That way we don't actively screw anyone who wants to update to rawhide. Bumping Rawhide to -1.fc11 also solves it - as alternative. Personally, I don't like the -X.fc10.Y style. You don't really have to like it, I suppose, but if you need to bump a non-rawhide branch and don't want to bump any later branches then you have no choice; it's the only versioning scheme that permits that. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches |