Spec URL: http://axioma.guegue.com/rpms/pulse/pulse.spec SRPM URL: http://axioma.guegue.com/rpms/pulse/pulse-0.10.5-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Pulse (previously Syncthing) replaces proprietary sync and cloud services with something open, trustworthy and distributed. Your data is your data alone and you deserve to choose where it is stored, if it is shared with some third party, and how it's transmitted over the Internet. Fedora Account System Username: axioma
Hi Javier, a few comments. - Given that the source comes from Github is advisable use of the Source url packaging guidelines, please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github - Use %global instead %define, %define is deprecated. - Description must not be over 80 columns per line - Citing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go Binary packages which build against this source will set $GOPATH to '%{_datadir}/gocode' ( or '%{gopath}' in golang > 1.2.1-1) - Try to separate the appropiate build method of the file build.sh. It is simpler and clean.
Any news in this review?
"Pulse is the low-level synchronisation engine at the heart of our platform. But it is not a consumer product and never will be. You can still download and use it but we will no longer be supporting it as a separate product. If you want a standalone synchronisation engine with community support, etc., please use Syncthing instead." Source: https://ind.ie/blog/focus/ Related links: https://discourse.syncthing.net/t/rpm-package-for-fedora/610/3 https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/thunderbirdtr/Syncthing_for_Fedora/ http://www.clearfoundation.com/docs/howtos/syncthing http://suite.tiki.org/Syncthing Thanks!
"a configuration for running syncthing under the "systemd" service manager on Linux both under either a systemd system service or systemd user service." https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/tree/master/etc/linux-systemd
Sorry for the long long time it took me to continue working on this. I have taken most of Echeverria's observations, using github guidlines, etc. However, I have not been able to make the build process any clearer, nor improve the use of gopath. Marc, I have renamed to syncthing. I have not yet used (installed) systemd script. It finally buidls fine for i696, x86_64 and arv7hl. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8912618 New spec and SRPM: http://axioma.guegue.com/rpms/syncthing/syncthing.spec http://axioma.guegue.com/rpms/syncthing/syncthing-0.10.22-1.fc21.src.rpm Any comments? Any advise?
Thanks Javier! This is deeply appreciated. What your thoughts with respect to EPEL 6 & 7? https://github.com/thunderbirdtr/syncthing_rpm/issues/3 https://github.com/thunderbirdtr/syncthing_rpm/commits/master And for Syncthing-GTK? https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing-gtk Thanks!
There is some feedback here: https://discourse.syncthing.net/t/progress-on-rpm-package-review-for-inclusion-in-epel-comments-and-advice-please/1824 Thanks!
New spec, same thing + systemd file ready to be used at system level. http://axioma.guegue.com/rpms/syncthing/systemd/syncthing.spec
Everything is OK according to koji, RPMs for i686, x86_64 and armv7hl http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8935993 To enable syncthing for user "bob" you just need to: systemctl enable syncthing systemctl start syncthing
The latest release is 0.10.26.
One more RPM: https://okay.com.mx/en/linux/rpm-repositories-for-centos-6-and-7.html yum install syncthing
Sorry, it seems that I was not clear. I was talking about an updated SPEC file/SRPM for this review request.
is there any progress with request?
Created attachment 1028831 [details] a bit updated spec file
bump. any progress here? Would like to use syncthing in fedora.
I maintain a copr repository with the latest syncthing and friends (decathorpe/syncthing) and would be interested in either picking up this review request (and updating it with the recent version) or creating a clean, new one and close this one as a duplicate. I am aware that the packages in my copr repo might not be ready for fedora proper yet, and I don't have much experience packaging golang packages, so please bear with me if it takes some time. You can use the current packages nonetheless (they work as intended) - I have quite a few happy users already.
Hey Fabio, Yes I saw your copr. I vote that we abandon this review and allow you to open a new one and/or commandeer this one. I say just try to get your spec file in reviewable state and post it here in this review and then we can work with you to try to get anything fixed up that needs to be. Jan Chaloupka (jchaloup) helped me with my first go package review and he would probably help you too.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1427634 ***