Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fsvs - full system versioning using subversion repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433778 josh.kayse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josh.kayse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From josh.kayse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-13 15:03 EST ------- I'll do a pre-review: Package Review Requirements: MUST: - rpmlint fsvs-1.1.12-3.fc8.src.rpm output: W: fsvs summary-ended-with-dot Fast System VerSioning - A complete backup/restore/versioning tool for file trees, with a subversion repository as the backend. E: fsvs summary-too-long Fast System VerSioning - A complete backup/restore/versioning tool for file trees, with a subversion repository as the backend. E: fsvs description-line-too-long It is a complete backup/restore/versioning tool for all files in a directory tree or whole filesystems, with a subversionTM repository as the backend. E: fsvs description-line-too-long If uses a different system for storing local version information that doesn't clutter directories like /etc like .svn directories in standard subversion would E: fsvs description-line-too-long A nice capability is to cope with local adjustments for different machines (using branching-like techniques), so that most of the space needed for the backup of system-files (/bin, /usr, ...) can be shared between machines. W: fsvs invalid-license GNU GPL E: fsvs non-utf8-spec-file fsvs.spec + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name - package should satisfy packaging guidelines You need to make sure all lines are less than 80 characters long in the description You should also shorten your summary and remove the period + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm md5: b1bf7a77c2c9466277bb38e0e81c2d27 ? package successfully builds on at least one architecture + ExcludeArch bugs filed + 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 Why do you redefine man_dir and doc_dir and manually place files there? + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - consistent use of macros Why do you redefine doc_dir and man_dir? + package must contain code or permissible content + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + 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 Could you explain your choices for renaming/changing the directories? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review