Bug 250747 (Linux-Complete-Backu)
| Summary: | Review Request: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Charles Curley <charlescurley> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Thomas Janssen <thomasj> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, itamar, notting, thomasj |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | thomasj:
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: | 2009-10-04 06:14:13 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Charles Curley
2007-08-03 13:19:04 UTC
*** Bug 250315 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** New SRPM: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO-2.3-2.fc7.src.rpm The spec, revised, is at the same place: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO.spec I'm not sponsored, so this isn't official:
? - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
--> Seems more a set of scripts than documentation... although I could be
looking at what it does all wrong :P Consider renaming after script-suite?
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK? - Spec has consistant macro usage.
--> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT could be macro-ified as %{buildroot}
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License is GPL
OK - License file is included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
NOT OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum
--> Source: e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4 Package:
e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4
OK - Package has correct buildroot.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
? - Changelog section is correct.
--> Not sure if one should put such direct references to the specfile in
%changelog... but it's probably bad form to change the %changelog after the fact...
Thank you, Mr. Boyle. > ? - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines > --> Seems more a set of scripts than documentation... although I could be > looking at what it does all wrong :P Consider renaming after script-suite? Hmmm. The current name is the name of the document at the Linux Documentation Project, and I figured that consistency would be a good idea. The main package is some of the scripts (more are to come), and the -doc subpackage is the original HOWTO in various formats. I could make the docs the main package and put the scripts into a -scripts subpackage, I suppose, but the current naming and subpackaging are consistent with current Fedora usage. I'm open to suggestions here. > OK? - Spec has consistant macro usage. > --> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT could be macro-ified as %{buildroot} OK, done. It should show up in the next version. > NOT OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum > --> Source: e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4 Package: > e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4 I'm not sure where that came from. In any case, it should go away as soon as I put new packages up on my server. > ? - Changelog section is correct. > --> Not sure if one should put such direct references to the specfile in > %changelog... but it's probably bad form to change the %changelog after the fact... That was the reason for the new package version, and the sole change. As with this one. Again, new SRPM: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/srpms/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO-2.3-3.fc7.src.rpm And the revised spec is at the usual: http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO.spec BTW, since my web page is pretty much automated, and comments for this bugzilla entry are not, the web page (http://www.charlescurley.com/Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO.html) is authoritative for the most recent version, not bugzilla. Are you still interested in this or is it dead? -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers It's dead. |