I'm opening this second review request as per bug 168690. pyBackPack - A GTK+ application written in Python to back up and restore files onto CDR, USB stick or SSH host, aimed at less technical users. The project was started for Google Summer of Code 2005 but I took over development when the original maintainer no longer wanted it. I aim to improve it considerably from its current state. Current version: 0.4.5 Spec: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack.spec SRPM: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.4.5-1.src.rpm RPM: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.4.5-1.noarch.rpm Thanks
*** Bug 168690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Just thought I'd let you know I haven't disappeared off the face of the earth. I haven't made a new release for a while but in svn there have been some interesting changes such as added i18n support. I've also sent some patches to rdiff-backup to fix some deeper bugs and started a branch to redo the GUI, refactor the code, and generally make improvements that would be hard to do by patching the trunk in its current state. I'm busy with course work at the moment but I'll let you know when I make a new release. I've also signed up on the Fedora accounts system as "andyp", if that helps at all.
It appears that this bug was /somewhat/ fixed, but perhaps not in the way I expected. http://projects.sucs.org/projects/pybackpack/ticket/36 It *is* much faster now, but when I exclude a directory like ~/xbuild, it still walks the tree, even if I excluded that directory from the backup set. Why? What use is that if we are not going to backup those files? Also, if there are any unreadable files/directories, the backup will terminate. It should just continue, but with a warning that those files could not be backed up. Sun Feb 18 03:34:44 2007: Starting backup of 'home-terastation' to '/net/terastation/mnt/array1/backup/pybackpack' Sun Feb 18 03:34:44 2007: Analysing backup source Sun Feb 18 03:38:48 2007: Permissions/file missing problems on certain files: Directory: /home/bjohnson/.lightscribe Sun Feb 18 03:38:48 2007: Backup failed. Setting your FE-NEEDSPONSOR and FE-NEW blockers so the right people can find you ;)
(In reply to comment #3) > it still walks the tree, even if I excluded that directory from the > backup set. This seemed to have the effect of making the progress slowly go up to 17%, then suddenly the backup was done.
(In reply to comment #2) > Just thought I'd let you know I haven't disappeared off the face of the earth. Andy, Can you post a status at least once a month? Otherwise, we should probably just close this and reopen once you have time to work on it.
Sorry this took so long. I've been doing a lot of refactoring and stability work on pybackpack recently. No shiny new features or big performance fixes I'm afraid, mostly reworking the code to make it easier to maintain. But nonetheless I've made a new release (0.5.0): Spec, SRPM and RPM: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack.spec http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.5.0-1.src.rpm http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.5.0-1.noarch.rpm You may not see much difference between the previous version and this version on the surface but development should start to pick up momentum now that the codebase is starting to become sane. I'm going to be crazy busy with university stuff until the middle of June but I'll try to keep the bug fixes coming and keep you posted at least once a month. Thanks again for your time. I appreciate the feedback even if the package is still far from Fedora-worthy.
(Monthly status report as per comment #5) No new release since 0.5.0. I'm currently busy studying for exams which finish in June. Expect lots more work starting then. Any feedback for the 0.5.0 package? Aside: Last month I got pybackpack 0.5.0 sponsored into Debian unstable so hopefully I'll get some good contextual feedback from that and it'll mature better off the back of it. Cheers
(In reply to comment #7) > Any feedback for the 0.5.0 package? Working about the same as last release, as expected. > Aside: Last month I got pybackpack 0.5.0 sponsored into Debian unstable so > hopefully I'll get some good contextual feedback from that and it'll mature > better off the back of it. That should help. Here's a few things I noticed when I again recently looked at your spec file: 1) warning from rpm when building: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pybackpack/backuptool.py That's because of this line: %attr(755,root,root) %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/backuptool.py take that out and either chmod it in %install after it's installed, or even better since you're upstream, fix the install script :) (does it even need to be executable?) 2) /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pybackpack/pybackpack_logo.png should go in /usr/share/pixmaps 3) /usr/share/applications/fedora-pybackpack.desktop specifies icon as "file-roller"? huh? 4) just replace all of this: %dir %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack %attr(755,root,root) %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/backuptool.py %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/*.py %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/*.glade %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/*.pyc %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/*.png with this: %{python_sitearch}/* 5) you really don't want this: %ghost %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/*.pyo
Thanks Bernard. Some of the issues raised with the spec file/installer have been addressed already and I'll make a note to see to the others for the next release. As for the desktop icon being file-roller, it's been that way since I started working on pybackpack. I'll see if I can get a more suitable icon drawn up, or find a stock "backup" icon.
(In reply to comment #9) > As for the desktop icon being file-roller, it's been that way since I started > working on pybackpack. I'll see if I can get a more suitable icon drawn up, or > find a stock "backup" icon. You already include pybackpack_logo.png. All you have to do is point the .desktop file to that.
(In reply to comment #10) > You already include pybackpack_logo.png. All you have to do is point the > .desktop file to that. I did consider that but I concluded that the icon doesn't scale down very well, it doesn't convey the function of the menu entry well enough (looks like a game about putting snakes in bags or something) and I'd rather do it well than kludge it. Could be just me being a perfectionist but there we go :) I've asked the pybackpack mailing list for their artistic ideas as my pybackpack time is better spent coding and fixing the more urgent bugs so I'll get a new icon one way or another.
If you need a better icon feel free to use http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService
I've just released 0.5.1. New package available from: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack.spec http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.5.1-1.fc7.src.rpm http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.5.1-1.fc7.noarch.rpm I've cleaned up the spec file according to Bernard's comment #8. It now doesn't require any patches and it puts the logo png in /usr/share/pixmaps/ I haven't got a new icon yet but I've asked fedora-artwork about it (thanks for the advice, Rahul). This review has been going on for quite a while now. If you could give me a good idea of how close I am to getting it right I'd be most grateful. Thanks
(In reply to comment #13) > This review has been going on for quite a while now. If you could give me a good > idea of how close I am to getting it right I'd be most grateful. Well, actually the review hasn't started :) We're just giving you informal comments to help you along. You'll need a sponsor to pick you up and review and approve your package. There is really nothing I see that I would consider a blocker in getting your package in. Your packaging is mostly sane, although I haven't rigorously reviewed it to meet the guidelines. My suggestion would be to post to the fedora-devel mailing list that you're looking for a sponsor for you and a formal review for your package.
Well, quick notes (I just glanced at your spec file of 0.5.1-1 on web) * Should python directory be python_sitearch? python_sitearch is supposed to be used for arch-dependent files. For noarch rpms, this should be usually python_sitelib. * X-Fedora category is deprecated and should be removed. * Please check the ownership of the directories. %{python_sitearch}/pybackpack/ is not owned by any package.
One more notes: * Please check is "INSTALL" file is really needed for %doc. Usually "INSTALL" file is for people who want to rebuild the package by themselves and is not needed for users who uses rpm package manager (I only checked your spec file and I have not yet checked INSTALL file for this package actually)
Well anyway: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora Extras package review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=mtasaka-review-noone Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
I've been corresponding with Andy some and am going to take over the review and will then sponsor him.
Setting the review flag here.
Per the comments in comment #15, there are a couple of things that have to be fixed for the package to be approved: * MUST: Use python_sitelib instead of python_sitearch. Otherwise, the build will fail to work properly on x86_64 (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python) * MUST: Need to own the python/site-packages/pybackpack dir. Something like %dir %{python_sitelib}/pybackpack will do the trick * SHOULD: Don't need to do the X-Fedora category anymore * SHOULD: Is the group really Applications/Multimedia? Applications/Archiving would make more sense to me Fix those up and I'll approve it/sponsor
Thanks for your feedback, Jeremy and Mamoru. I've incorporated your suggestions into a new package: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack.spec http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.5.1-2.fc7.src.rpm http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.5.1-2.fc7.noarch.rpm Changes: - Use python_sitelib instead of python_sitearch - Fix ownership of python/site-packages/pybackpack dir - Remove X-Fedora category - Move to Applications/Archiving group Thanks very much
Looks good. Approving the package and sponsoring.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pybackpack Short Description: File backup manager Owners: andy.uk Branches: F-7
cvs done.
The package built successfully in Koji. Sending bug to NEXTRELEASE as per the docs. Thanks all for your valuable input and help :-)
pybackpack-0.5.1-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
pybackpack-0.5.1-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.