Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-18 13:46:44 EDT --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #1) > ** FIX ** - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual > license. > ** OK ** The file COPYING matches the spec License line. > !! Warning !! The file PKG-INFO mentions as license GNU GPL which does not > match GPLv3+ > !! Warning !! The source files do not match the license: > # archiver.py > # > # Project: AutoArchive > # License: GNU GPL I changed the license to GPL+, removed the needless COPYING, and informed upstream about the discrepancy. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1110082&aid=2691699&group_id=239510 > !! Warning !! Not all Requirements are listed - lzma seems to be used and is > not part > of the Packaging/FullExceptionList (it is up to you to decide). %files section added > ** FIX ** - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. > $ file /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING > /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING: ASCII English text > > Keeping the original date/time of documentation file is probably a good idea > (no guidelines about this) > > A simple solution : > # Convert to utf-8 > for file in COPYING NEWS README README.sk; do > mv $file timestamp > iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 -o $file timestamp > touch -r timestamp $file > done The files are already UTF-8, aren't they? > Issues: > - Would be nice to provide some example config-files with extention .aa There is an example configuration mentioned in the README. Pinged upstream about that https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2692252&group_id=239510&atid=1110082 > - command name "aa" does not remind me of "autoarchive", perhaps better > use autoarchive This is upstream's call and not the one of the package maintainers. I agree with you that the name would be better 'autoarchive' than 'aa'. https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2692266&group_id=239510&atid=1110082 > - The name autoarchiver is sometimes written as AutoArchiver. Why the > difference? The project is called 'AutoArchive' and the application stuff 'autoarchive'. For me this seams a normal way to go. 'AutoArchive' for the python stuff is feasible, from my point of view. > - FIX the above mentioned items done > - Summary line (in spec file) is a bit simplistic "Simple backup tool". > Does not give me any hint about autoarchiver. Please give a better > summary. As fare as I know is the intention of the summary to provide only very basic information about the tool. But changed a bit. Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review