Spec URL: https://flamingspork.com/junk/percona-xtrabackup-2.1.5-fedora/percona-xtrabackup.spec SRPM URL: https://flamingspork.com/junk/percona-xtrabackup-2.1.5-fedora/percona-xtrabackup-2.1.5-1.src.rpm Description: Online backup for InnoDB/XtraDB in MySQL, MariaDB and Percona Server Fedora Account System Username: stewartsmith
Some help(I'm not a sponsor, please find a potential sponsor via: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group): 1. Please drop these: # # rpm spec for xtrabackup # and ### ### eof ### As far as I can tell you, these are useless and they make the spec jumbled 2. Release: 1 Please read carefully when you want to build a package for Fedora as the first time: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Using_the_.25.7B.3Fdist.7D_Tag 3. http://www.percona.com/redir/downloads/XtraBackup/LATEST/source/percona-xtrabackup-2.1.5.tar.gz --> http://www.percona.com/redir/downloads/XtraBackup/LATEST/source/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz So next time when you want to update the package, you just need to modify the version tag and it will be changed automatically. 4. Please remove these obsoleted lines for ~EPEL5: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root [ "%{buildroot}" != '/' ] && rm -rf %{buildroot} %defattr(-,root,root) %clean 5. Please sort your spec in a nice order, in brief, please move %changelog section to the bottom of every spec. 6. I don't know why you had this: %define __os_install_post /usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress I don't think we need it anymore now. 7. install -m 755 Please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps and fix. 8. We don't allow this: AutoReqProv: no Please tell us the reason, we can help.
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > Some help(I'm not a sponsor, please find a potential sponsor via: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group): Thanks so much for the review! > 1. Please drop these: > > # > # rpm spec for xtrabackup > # > > and > > > ### > ### eof > ### > > > As far as I can tell you, these are useless and they make the spec jumbled Done. > 2. Release: 1 > > Please read carefully when you want to build a package for Fedora as the > first time: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Using_the_.25.7B. > 3Fdist.7D_Tag done, thanks! > 3. > http://www.percona.com/redir/downloads/XtraBackup/LATEST/source/percona- > xtrabackup-2.1.5.tar.gz > > --> > > http://www.percona.com/redir/downloads/XtraBackup/LATEST/source/%{name}- > %{version}.tar.gz > > So next time when you want to update the package, you just need to modify > the version tag and it will be changed automatically. Done. > 4. Please remove these obsoleted lines for ~EPEL5: > > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root > > [ "%{buildroot}" != '/' ] && rm -rf %{buildroot} > > %defattr(-,root,root) > > %clean Done. Would this affect building for EPEL for CentOS/RHEL5? > 5. Please sort your spec in a nice order, in brief, please move %changelog > section to the bottom of every spec. Sounds like a good idea, done. > 6. I don't know why you had this: > > %define __os_install_post /usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress > > I don't think we need it anymore now. It seems like we added it many years ago, but the debuginfo packages take care of this now. Removed. > > 7. install -m 755 > > Please see: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps > > and fix. done > 8. We don't allow this: > > AutoReqProv: no > > Please tell us the reason, we can help. Removed. This was due to a (now mostly obsolete) test infrastructure we had. I've solved it by just not packaging it. Updated spec file: https://flamingspork.com/junk/percona-xtrabackup-2.1.5-fedora/percona-xtrabackup.spec Updated SRPM: https://flamingspork.com/junk/percona-xtrabackup-2.1.5-fedora/percona-xtrabackup-2.1.5-1.fc19.src.rpm (give the SRPM a few minutes, it's uploading)
(In reply to Stewart Smith from comment #2) > > 4. Please remove these obsoleted lines for ~EPEL5: > > > > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root > > > > [ "%{buildroot}" != '/' ] && rm -rf %{buildroot} > > > > %defattr(-,root,root) > > > > %clean > > Done. Would this affect building for EPEL for CentOS/RHEL5? Yes, it will affect. From Fedora 10/RHEL6 we don't need these but on RHEL5 they are still needed. Does this tool work well on RHEL5+EPEL5?
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > (In reply to Stewart Smith from comment #2) > > > 4. Please remove these obsoleted lines for ~EPEL5: > > > > > > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root > > > > > > [ "%{buildroot}" != '/' ] && rm -rf %{buildroot} > > > > > > %defattr(-,root,root) > > > > > > %clean > > > > Done. Would this affect building for EPEL for CentOS/RHEL5? > > Yes, it will affect. > > From Fedora 10/RHEL6 we don't need these but on RHEL5 they are still needed. > > Does this tool work well on RHEL5+EPEL5? Yes, we do build our own RPMs for RHEL5 and have customers using it on RHEL5 quite successfully (with build-dependencies from EPEL)
Hmm...Ok so you can keep them in EL5 branch when you access the SCM git repo. I hope you can keep your spec in modern style on rawhide branch, and keep these old things on EL5 branch only. BTW, I saw: Requires: perl(DBD::mysql) Have you tried: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version))?
Again: 1. Packager: Percona Development Team <mysql-dev> Fedora doesnt allow this. Please remove. 2. Provides: xtrabackup >= 2.0.0 Obsoletes: xtrabackup < 2.0.0 I think we don't need this. 3. BuildRequires: libaio-devel, libgcrypt-devel, automake, cmake >= 2.6.3, patch, gcc, gcc-c++, libtool, bison, ncurses-devel, openssl-devel, procps Well some of them can be dropped: automake, patch, gcc, gcc-c++, libtool 4. I can't see any reference of RPM %{optflags} in build section. Please make sure that optflags are inserted well.
If you have not already seen, 2.1.6 was released (https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852224) and fixes a possible security issue: "" A fixed initialization vector (constant string) was used while encrypting the data. This opened the encrypted stream/data to plaintext attacks among others. Bug fixed #1185343. ""
(In reply to Murray McAllister from comment #7) > If you have not already seen, 2.1.6 was released > (https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852224) and fixes a possible > security issue: > > "" > A fixed initialization vector (constant string) was used while encrypting > the data. This opened the encrypted stream/data to plaintext attacks among > others. Bug fixed #1185343. > "" I'm aware, I'll update shortly.
2.1.7 was released and it also has security fixes, as noted by a SUSE bug report: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860488
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 918431 ***