Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sparkleshare - sharing work made easy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629744 Summary: Review Request: sparkleshare - sharing work made easy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ReportedBy: fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx QAContact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: notting@xxxxxxxxxx, fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.alexhudson.com/stuff/sparkleshare/sparkleshare.spec SRPM URL: http://www.alexhudson.com/stuff/sparkleshare/sparkleshare-0.2.alpha2-5.fc13.src.rpm Description: Easy file sharing based on git repositories. A special folder is setup, and directories/files placed within are placed in a git-based version control system and synchronized elsewhere. The website for SparkleShare is at http://www.sparkleshare.org/ rpmlint for the spec and SRPM offers the same warning: sparkleshare.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://alexh.fedorapeople.org/sources/sparkleshare-0.2.alpha2.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found Fair enough warning; there isn't a valid upstream tarball available yet. I'm working on this and the beta release, coming within the next week, should have this available. rpmlint offers a further set of warnings on the binary RPM: sparkleshare.x86_64: E: no-binary sparkleshare.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib As I understand it, these messages can both be ignored, since this is a Mono-based application and won't have binaries but also cannot be noarch. I have built this under mock, and am making versions available on http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/alexh/sparkleshare/ - I intend for that repo to track upstream more aggressively. Known issues: * the libraries are not installed into the GAC. They have no strong name yet, so other applications should not be using them - so I consider this a future issue to resolve rather than a critical bug; * I've tweaked the version on the package slightly to make it compliant with Fedora versioning. This has also been discussed with upstream, and future releases will use a standard numbering that requires no tweaking; * Source0 is incorrect (as mentioned above) * debug_info is turned off for this. I'm not exactly sure what would go into such a package; possibly the .mdb files - I'm still researching this? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review