Bug 610073

Summary: Review Request: flyback - time machine for linux
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Sascha Thomas Spreitzer <sspreitzer>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: cwickert, fedora-package-review, Mohammed_ElAfifi, mrceresa, notting, pahan, sspreitzer
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-24 10:28:39 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 2010-07-01 10:00:00 EDT
Spec URL: http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/flyback/flyback.spec
SRPM URL: http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/flyback/flyback-20100629-1.fc13.src.rpm
Description:
! this is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor !
A time machine for linux, a clone of Apples Time Machine backup and archive utility.
Comment 1 Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 2010-07-01 10:02:11 EDT
Checked the spec and the srpm with rpmlint. No errors or warnings.
Comment 2 Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 2010-08-04 18:53:48 EDT
David Woodhouse is sponsoring me, removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockage.
Comment 3 Mohammed Safwat 2010-08-06 19:43:12 EDT
I amn't a sponsor; this's just a casual review.

- The Version field should reflect the corresponding software version as specified on the project website. I can't find a version matching 20100629 at http://code.google.com/p/flyback/downloads/list.

- There's neither a separate license(COPYING) file nor a license header notice in the source files. The specified version, GPLv2, correctly matches the one specified at the project page http://code.google.com/p/flyback/; you should notify the upstream to include a license file and a license notice in the source file headers. This isn't a blocker, however.

- The Source0 URL expands to path pertaining to the packager personal space at fedorapeople; this can't be a valid permanent link to get the original software source from. You should specify a download link as provided by the upstream, usually at the software site.

- You can substitute the project name directly in the Source0 field instead of the macro %{name} just to facilitate tracking the URL for reviewers, but it's a matter of personal prefernce anyway.

- You should uncomment the BuildRequires filed, stating appropriate required python runtime development libraries(python 2 or python 3). See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires for details. You should also add desktop-file-utils in the BuildRequires field as explained at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage, since you've a desktop file in your package.

- Under %build section, the instructions section are intended to add a new wrapper shell script to a python script. You should instead create a patch containing this wrapper script and use %patch under %prep section to apply the patch.

- Under %install section, you should use the install command with appropriate command-line switches instead of mkdir and cp commands. Consult the install manual as well as http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling for available install options and examples.

- Under %install section, to install the desktop file use the command desktop-file-install instead of cp. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage for more usage scenarios of this command.

- Under %install and %files sections, you should make use of the predefined path macros instead of specifying explicit paths, for example %{_datarootdir} instead of /usr/share, %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin, and %{_desktopdir} instead of /usr/share/applications, ...etc. The command `rpm --showrc' can help you identify the paths predefined by macros. Check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Drafts/BuildingPackagesGuide#Case_Study:_leafpad for other useful examples.

- In the desktop file flyback.desktop, it's better to specify the icon with a short name, but the full path is also OK. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Icon_tag_in_Desktop_Files for explanation.

- The desktop file contains a deprecated key, FilePattern, as described at http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-latest.html#deprecated-items. It should be removed.
Comment 4 Sascha Thomas Spreitzer 2010-08-07 09:03:28 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)

Wow, thank you very much Mohammed for the detailed review, I will soon start to work through your list. Please stand by. :)
Comment 5 Mohammed Safwat 2010-08-15 03:11:27 EDT
If there's no clear source tarball for the software(as I haven't found one on the website), consider creating the tarball yourself. In this case, just state the tarball file name(with no URL) in the Source0 field, as illustrated at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL.
Comment 6 Mario Ceresa 2010-11-24 04:25:21 EST
Hello!
I tried to retrieve the spec file but I cannot access it anymore. Is the review still going on? I'll be interested to help.

Mario
Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-24 10:28:39 EST
I believe the submitter indicated that they were completely leaving the project for whatever reason.  I know they had all content removed from their account.  I'll just close this ticket.