Bug 450850 - Review Request: move - Move file(s) to ~/.trash directory
Review Request: move - Move file(s) to ~/.trash directory
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 456385
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-06-11 08:28 EDT by pjp
Modified: 2008-07-25 06:40 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-25 06:40:03 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description pjp 2008-06-11 08:28:55 EDT
SPEC URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/move.spec
SRPM URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/move-1.2-1.fc8.src.rpm

Description: 
move moves the named file(s) to the ~/.trash directory. Trash is located
under the home directory of a user. It is a simple console based utility,
I wrote after deleting some files, which I couldn't retrieve back.
Move can also restore file(s) back to there original location. It has really
proved very handy to me.

This is my second fedora package, and am looking for a sponsor for this and my earlier package tlock. I'd really appreciate if somebody could come forward for the sponsorship.

tlock: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444952

Thank you!
Comment 1 Ralf Corsepius 2008-06-11 15:28:35 EDT
Some remarks:

1. I do not consider this application to be useful, because it aims at
implementing "yet another backing-up mv" replacement, using the "n-th"
non-standardized mechanism.

2. Naming an application "move" is a bad choice, because it's such a general
name that it's likely colliding with many other applications/scripts users may
have installed.

Provided this, I am not interested in formally reviewing this packages (This
shouldn't preventr others from doing so.).


Some technical remarks:

* The package doesn't acknowledge CFLAGS.

The cause is this bug in Makefile:
--- Makefile.am~	2008-06-11 21:18:07.000000000 +0200
+++ Makefile.am	2008-06-11 21:18:07.000000000 +0200
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 ## 6. automake -ac --foreign
 ##
 
-CFLAGS = -D_GNU_SOURCE
+AM_CPPFLAGS = -D_GNU_SOURCE
 
 bin_PROGRAMS = move
 move_SOURCES = move.c movedb.c move.h movedb.ham:

* The spec file uses /sbin/install-info
=> Missing: Requires(pre) etc.

Comment 2 pjp 2008-06-12 03:02:39 EDT
  Hello Ralf, thanks for the technical comments.

I've replaced CFLAGS with the AM_CFLAGS. Please see the new files at

SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/move.spec
SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/move-1.2.tar.gz
SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/move-1.2-2.fc8.src.rpm

> * The spec file uses /sbin/install-info
> => Missing: Requires(pre) etc.

About this Requires(pre), is it necessary if there is no %pre section in the
spec file?

Thanks!
Comment 3 Mamoru TASAKA 2008-06-12 11:28:18 EDT
Well, now the package itself seems okay (althogh I recommend to use
-------------------------------------------------------------
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"
-------------------------------------------------------------
to keep timestamps on installed file), however I also think that
the name "move" is too generic...
Comment 4 pjp 2008-06-13 05:26:48 EDT
  Hello Mamoru, thanks for the comments.

I've made the changes. Please see the latest files at

SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/move.spec
SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/move-1.2-3.fc8.src.rpm

> however I also think that the name "move" is too generic...

  I do understand; But I really don't think it's practical to rename it..is it
that big a hurdle?

Thanks!
Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2008-06-13 08:00:51 EDT
(In reply to comment #4)

>   I do understand; But I really don't think it's practical to rename it..is it
> that big a hurdle?

Yes, it is. Did you approach upstream to ask them why they used such
a generic name?
Comment 6 pjp 2008-06-13 09:07:37 EDT
> Yes, it is. Did you approach upstream to ask them why they used such
> a generic name?

  Well, when I wrote Move it seemed like a sensible name, and it still does to
me. It speaks about it's action, and is intuitive that way. Why is it that big a
deal?
Comment 7 Patrice Dumas 2008-06-13 09:14:31 EDT
It is too generic. Many programs can do the same than yours, none should
be called move, except if there is a standard endorsing the name.
Comment 8 pjp 2008-06-17 01:22:45 EDT
(In reply to comment #7)
> It is too generic. Many programs can do the same than yours, none should
> be called move, except if there is a standard endorsing the name.

  What name would you suggest? Trash??

  $ trash <file-name>
Comment 9 Jean-François Martin 2008-06-17 03:22:30 EDT
>   What name would you suggest? Trash??
> 
>   $ trash <file-name>
> 

I have a package (not yet reviewed) that already use 
$ trash <file>

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448122448122
Comment 10 pjp 2008-06-17 04:22:43 EDT
> I have a package (not yet reviewed) that already use 
> $ trash <file>

  Gawd...will ptrash do? I cann't believe I'm haggling for a name now.
Comment 11 Patrice Dumas 2008-06-17 06:00:40 EDT
ptrash would be perfect in my opinion.
Comment 12 pjp 2008-07-23 05:43:19 EDT
  Hello all,

Please see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456385

Thank you!
Comment 13 Patrice Dumas 2008-07-25 06:40:03 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 456385 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.