Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 435370
Review Request: cpdup - Filesystem mirroring utility
Last modified: 2008-04-09 01:15:26 EDT
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/bsd/cpdup.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/bsd/cpdup-1.07-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: The cpdup utility makes an exact mirror copy of the source in the destination, creating and deleting files and directories as necessary. UTimes, hardlinks, softlinks, devices, permissions, and flags are mirrored. By default, cpdup asks for confirmation if any file or directory needs to be removed from the destination and does not copy files which it believes to have already been synchronized (by observing that the source and destination file’s size and mtimes match). cpdup does not cross mount points in either the source or the destination. As a safety measure, cpdup refuses to replace a destination directory with a file.
why this package have ExcludeArch: x86_64 ExcludeArch: ppc64 ?
Starting review on this in an hour or two.
+ rpmlint output no output from rpmlint + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora BSD + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file there is no license file included + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm md5: 4f9d132f5a81d3f38b53267ae7af24a8 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture i386 ? ExcludeArch bugs filed Please file ExcludeArch bugs if necessary, and post the bug numbers here. + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage N/A + files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel + static libraries should be in -static + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files + packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: ? if there is no license file, packager should query upstream + translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available ? reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures ? review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane + pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -------- Please file those ExcludeArch bugs if necessary and put the bug numbers here, and then I can approve this.
OK. I was going to file the bug /after/ the package is approved, but I guess it can always be redirected to the right component, once the package is in the repository. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435508 (ps Parag, sorry, I meant to mention it when filing the review)
Please don't file non review requests in package review. ;) "New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number."
Argh, sorry -- that was the original intention. Richard, is everything else in working order?
I just want to see some ExcludeArch bugs filed, because this package doesn't build on x86-64 and ppc64. Maybe they are already filed. Post the bug numbers here then I'll approve it.
OK I see that bug 435508 is an attempt at this. You need one bug per architecture and they have to block the trackers for the architectures. This is all explained here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Richard: Did you see the quote from the guidelines in comment #5? You shouldn't file bugs before the package is approved and has it's own bugzilla component to file them against. For review they can add a comment until they are approved.
Oh I see, right. That makes sense. So APPROVED, but please remember to file the bugs after :-)
Thanks. And yes, will create another entry for ppc64 (IMHO it's a waste of a bugzilla id, since it's really the same bug, but I won't quibble) and move the existing bug entry once the package is in. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: cpdup Short Description: Filesystem mirroring utility Owners: salimma Branches: EL-5 F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Package built, thanks
cpdup-1.07-1.fc7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 7
cpdup-1.07-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
cpdup-1.07-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cpdup-1.07-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.