Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 173080
Summary: | Review Request: fdupes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Simon B <simon__b> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Adrian Reber <adrian> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | besser82, bnocera |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | gwync:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.thoughtpolice.co.uk/packages/fedora/fc4/fdupes/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-01-09 17:15:18 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Simon B
2005-11-13 20:43:07 UTC
Notice that fdupes was already submitted to Extras and is waiting for review. (What an irony to have a duplicate submission for a package whose purpose is to avoid duplicated files). ;-) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172870 Damn. That's annoying, I use fdupes a lot, and was hoping to be the maintainer. I asked the author if he was okay with me packaging for extras, and he was. Then I checked the list of packages, and fdupes wasn't on it. I guess my timing was bad. I'll withdraw my submission if you want to be the maintainer. I did not say that I was the maintainer, I was simply checking my email while in the interval of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers", (oops another duplication ;-) ). You should contact Bastien Nocera who submitted the other package. That was why I did not closed this bug as duplicated. And now back to the rest of the movie. ;-) Damn Channel 4 adverts ;) Simon, if you're interested in maintaining fdupes, feel free. But please make sure that you take into account the patch from Adrian in the other bug. Great, thanks. I've uploaded the new spec file and srpm. Same URLs as before. I noticed that Adrian uses Applications/Files as a Group, which rpmlint doesn't like. I've assumed rpmlint was wrong, and changed from Applications/System. (In reply to comment #5) > I noticed that Adrian uses Applications/Files as a Group, which rpmlint doesn't > like. I've assumed rpmlint was wrong, and changed from Applications/System. The group should be selected from one of the ones listed in the file /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS Applications/File would seem to be the best candidate (same as for findutils). (In reply to comment #6) > The group should be selected from one of the ones listed in the file > /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS > > Applications/File would seem to be the best candidate (same as for findutils). > Thanks for that. Very useful. I've put a request in for rpmlint to recognise more groups (bug 173149). This is my first package for Extras, and I am seeking a sponsor. (In reply to comment #5) > I noticed that Adrian uses Applications/Files as a Group, which rpmlint doesn't > like. That was a typo and should have been Applications/File. So rpmlint was right. So who is submitting this package now? Bastien or Simon? (In reply to comment #9) > That was a typo and should have been Applications/File. So rpmlint was right. Fixed. > So who is submitting this package now? Bastien or Simon? I am. Is that an offer to sponsor me? :) You shouldn't repeat the name of the package in the summary. Instead of patching the Makefile you could just use install to copy the files to the correct location without using "make install". This would make the spec a bit easier to read because the makefile tweaking wouldn't be necessary. The Group has still to be changed from Applications/Files to Applications/File *** Bug 172870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Fixed. Latest version on site. Please post the link to the updated SRPM. It is not hard to find, but would be nicer if I don't have to guess. Looks pretty good so far the only thing which should be added back to the spec is this line "%{__sed} -i -e "s/-Wall/$RPM_OPT_FLAGS/" Makefile" with which the RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used to build the binary. Thanks for that. I've updated the spec file and srpm: http://www.thoughtpolice.co.uk/packages/fedora/fc4/fdupes/fdupes.spec http://www.thoughtpolice.co.uk/packages/fedora/fc4/fdupes/fdupes-1.40-3.src.rpm * builds in mock (FC4 and development) * rpmlint is happy * spec looks good * source matches upstream * clean installation and removal * works as expected APPROVED I can sponsor you. Do you already exist in the account system? Great! Thanks! Yes, I have an account. I cannot find this in the development tree. Have you not requested a build in the devel tree? If this has been built successfully then please close this bug according to the documentation in the wiki. Hi Adrian, Thanks for the heads up. It's in now. (In reply to comment #19) > It's in now. Could you then set this ticket to CLOSED / NEXTRELEASE ? Thanks. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: fdupes New Branches: el5 el6 epel7 Owners: besser82 hobbes1069 Want to build on EPEL-branches, too. Git done (by process-git-requests). |