Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/smerrill/fedora-21-anything-sync-daemon/master/SPECS/anything-sync-daemon.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/smerrill/fedora-21-anything-sync-daemon/master/SRPMS/anything-sync-daemon-5.65-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Symlinks and syncs arbitrary directories to RAM via tmpfs which will reduce HDD/SDD calls. Fedora Account System Username: stevenmerrill The spec file and SRPM pass rpmlint on Fedora 21 and a COPR build succeeded on CentOS 7 and Fedora 19 - rawhide: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/stevenmerrill/anything-sync-daemon/build/69035/ . profile-sync-daemon, its sister project, is already packaged in Fedora, and this spec file was adapted from it. I am running it on my laptop to offload IntelliJ cache files into tmpfs.
This is an unofficial review only. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ======== Issues ============== As the spec file is adapted from a similar project already in fedora repository, as expected, the spec file is almost clean. There is only thing that has changed since then. Just move the MIT file from %doc to %license and I think it is fine. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: anything-sync-daemon-5.65-1.fc21.noarch.rpm anything-sync-daemon-5.65-1.fc21.src.rpm anything-sync-daemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Symlinks -> Slinks anything-sync-daemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tmpfs -> temps anything-sync-daemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Symlinks -> Slinks anything-sync-daemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tmpfs -> temps 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/graysky2/anything-sync-daemon/archive/v5.65.tar.gz#/anything-sync-daemon-5.65.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9fdf2d32d885ed463381334ceba783911dd7e9f0abbea8e2aef6a09c3ff0dacf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9fdf2d32d885ed463381334ceba783911dd7e9f0abbea8e2aef6a09c3ff0dacf OK
This message is a reminder that Fedora 21 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 21. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '21'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 21 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Let's try this again. I have incorporated the previous feedback regarding the %license macro and updated to the newest version of upstream's source code (5.76.) Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/smerrill/fedora-21-anything-sync-daemon/f076f49293b943e10a51b0217273003a9f1a190b/SPECS/anything-sync-daemon.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/smerrill/fedora-21-anything-sync-daemon/f076f49293b943e10a51b0217273003a9f1a190b/SRPMS/anything-sync-daemon-5.76-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Symlinks and syncs arbitrary directories to RAM via tmpfs which will reduce HDD/SDD calls. Fedora Account System Username: stevenmerrill I have also recently built a new COPR off of the source RPM linked above at https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/stevenmerrill/anything-sync-daemon/ .
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Never assign package reviews tickets to a release other than "Rawhide". It breaks almost everything and hides the review request from the various trackers, too. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.