Bug 516340

(In reply to comment #0)
> Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fupt/fupt.spec
> SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fupt/fupt-20090808-1.fc12.src.rpm
> Description: It is often useful to be able to easily paste text to the Fedora 
> Pastebin at http://fpaste.org and this simple script will do that
>  and return the resulting URL so that people may examine the 
> output. This can hopefully help folks who are for some reason 
> stuck without X, working remotely, or any other reason they may 
> be unable to paste something into the pastebin  

More info on the mock build can be found here:

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fupt/

regards,

Ankur

You can drop the buildroot. There is no need to define it anymore

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

Also cleaning it up in %install is unnecessary as well. See the next section. 

Can you also request upstream to consider using fedorahosted.org?

The output "Please tell us this resulting URL (may take a second)" seems pretty ambiguous. If this is intended for a non technical audience, tell whom? What is URL"

If the upstream author needs help in better wording, fedora-docs list can be useful.

(In reply to comment #2)
> You can drop the buildroot. There is no need to define it anymore
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
> 
> Also cleaning it up in %install is unnecessary as well. See the next section. 
> 
> Can you also request upstream to consider using fedorahosted.org?
> 
> The output "Please tell us this resulting URL (may take a second)" seems pretty
> ambiguous. If this is intended for a non technical audience, tell whom? What is
> URL"
> 
> If the upstream author needs help in better wording, fedora-docs list can be
> useful.  

updated spec and srpm:

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fupt/fupt.spec

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/fupt/fupt-20090809-1.fc12.src.rpm

regards,

Ankur

GPLv3 requires a copy of the license to be included with the source. So add it as a additional source. Once you do that, you can go ahead and apply for cvs. 

Approved

(In reply to comment #4)
> Approved

Do you think this was a wise decision? I don't. IMO, this package is not ready of public consumption.


Rationale:

- No understandable documentation.

I have never heard about fpaste.org before, don't why I would want to access it, nor do I understand what this package does nor why I would want to install it.

- Very immature implementation of the script.
 * No "usage()", no support for --help.
 * Naming a script *.sh is unnessary on Unix.
 * Using a "4 letter" name such as fupt for such a script is not
   necessarily a wise decision.

- Improper upstream packaging (no tarball, no versions, ... 
  ... part of this (as you already mentioned: improper licensing).


- The script is unsafe:

if [ ! -e /usr/bin/curl ]; then
...
  cat $1 | curl -s -i -F "content=<-;type=text/plain" ..
...
Note: It tests for /usr/bin/curl but runs "curl".

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Approved
> 
> Do you think this was a wise decision? I don't. IMO, this package is not ready
> of public consumption.
> 
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> - No understandable documentation.
> 
> I have never heard about fpaste.org before, don't why I would want to access
> it, nor do I understand what this package does nor why I would want to install
> it.
> 
> - Very immature implementation of the script.
>  * No "usage()", no support for --help.
>  * Naming a script *.sh is unnessary on Unix.
>  * Using a "4 letter" name such as fupt for such a script is not
>    necessarily a wise decision.
> 
> - Improper upstream packaging (no tarball, no versions, ... 
>   ... part of this (as you already mentioned: improper licensing).
> 
> 
> - The script is unsafe:
> 
> if [ ! -e /usr/bin/curl ]; then
> ...
>   cat $1 | curl -s -i -F "content=<-;type=text/plain" ..
> ...
> Note: It tests for /usr/bin/curl but runs "curl".  

hi,

I'm waiting on Rahul to confirm the approval.

I can ask upstream to do the needful if it's really needed. 

regards,

Ankur

These are not really packaging issues but you can talk to upstream about it.

(In reply to comment #7)
> These are not really packaging issues but you can talk to upstream about it.  

okay.. im packaging it in the mean time.. if and when upstream responds, ill release a new package..

regards,

Ankur

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: fupt
Short Description: Fedora Unity Paste tool
Owners: ankursinha
Branches: F-11 F-10

(In reply to comment #7)
> These are not really packaging issues but you can talk to upstream about it.  

Pardon? A package being immature certainly is a review issue.
It's one of the key points of why reviews exits.

The fact, you (Rahul) are missing this, even on such a trivial package, is a scandal!

cvs done.

Ralf,

Yes, the way upstream hosts the software is not ideal but we do not control it. It can only be requested to be changed and that information along with other suggestions from you has been conveyed upstream. Like you said, it is a trivial script and I am confident we can improve it via updates instead of holding up the review.

(In reply to comment #12)
> Ralf,
> 
> Yes, the way upstream hosts the software is not ideal
Not ideal? I am questioning that this package is more than a 3rd lesson programming beginner's exercise and a package at all.

> but we do not control it.
Then do your job and encourage upstream to do convert their script into a usable and useful package.

We do so on many occasions, so why did you fail to do so now?

> It can only be requested to be changed and that information along with other
> suggestions from you has been conveyed upstream. Like you said, it is a trivial
> script and I am confident we can improve it via updates instead of holding up
> the review.  
I think we should reject the this script until upstream has converted into a package.

Fedora is not programming beginner's kindergarden nor a pool for silly scripts.

"Then do your job and encourage upstream to do convert their script into a
usable and useful package."

Encouraging, yes. Rejecting the software on the basis of that, no. Let's just agree to disagree.

(In reply to comment #14)
> "Then do your job and encourage upstream to do convert their script into a
> usable and useful package."
> 
> Encouraging, yes. Rejecting the software on the basis of that, no.
Great, ... I had not realisized the Fedora quality standards are such kind of low. I'd recommend you to stop reviewing or better you to quit Fedora.

A master piece of a Red Hat employing letting through crap ware. Taking me off this childish review.

hi,

fupt is not going to be packaged due to the issues presented above. Switched to fpaste.py 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516698

regards,

Ankur

hi,

Since the packaging process is not going to go ahead, can the cvs please be revoked?

closing the bug as a WONTFIX

regards,

Ankur

cvs done.

Switching from fedora‑review+ to fedora‑review- as there was no formal
package review and the whole process was stopped anyway with WONTFIX.

Toshio, why does the search still find the "fupt" package? Can we please
get rid of this really - and sane? Would be perfect :)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/search/package/?searchwords=fupt&operator=AND&release=0&searchon=both

Fix for searching is in the packagedb devel branch but we're in the middle of some extensive changes right now.  So it may be awhile before it's deployed.