Bug 1186819 - Review Request: burp - Network backup / restore program
Summary: Review Request: burp - Network backup / restore program
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: gil cattaneo
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1186820 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-01-28 15:32 UTC by Andrew Niemantsverdriet
Modified: 2015-07-07 19:35 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version: burp-1.4.36-6.fc21
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-05-14 14:18:05 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
puntogil: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-01-28 15:32:02 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: Burp is a network backup and restore program, using client and server. It uses librsync in order to save network traffic and to save on the 
amount of space that is used by each backup. It also uses VSS (Volume Shadow Copy Service) to make snapshots when backing up Windows computers.
Fedora Account System Username: kaptk2

Comment 1 Robin Lee 2015-01-29 01:21:11 UTC
*** Bug 1186820 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Pranav Kant 2015-02-01 20:17:03 UTC
A point regarding changelog entries before a full review. Also this is an unofficial review.

* Please check the ChangeLog guidelines here :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

I can see some of the ChangeLog entries are not according to the format. ChangeLog entries should not be copied directly from the source CHANGELOG entries

"Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the changes done to the package between releases, including noting updating to a new version, adding a patch, fixing other spec sections, note bugs fixed, and CVE's if any. They must never simply contain an entire copy of the source CHANGELOG entries."

Comment 3 Pranav Kant 2015-02-01 21:47:13 UTC
This is an unofficial review.

Please correct following issues before a full review of this package.

Issues:
* Package contains duplicates in %files.
  File listed twice: /etc/burp/CA-client
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
* %clean is not required at all
* There is no need to run rm -rf %{buildroot} at beginning %install.
* Your %files section contains defattr which is not needed anymore.


Rpmlint output:

Checking: burp-1.3.48-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          burp-1.3.48-1.fc21.src.rpm
burp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librsync -> library
burp.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/burp/summary_script
burp.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man8
burp.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/burp/notify_script
burp.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/burp/timer_script
burp.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/burp/ssl_extra_checks_script
burp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librsync -> library
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings.


Source checksums:

https://github.com/grke/burp/archive/1.3.48.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1c45d0b052367595000e64d33eb5d742dbc0e0a9b24bc917a6b4f98b43c0ffdc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c45d0b052367595000e64d33eb5d742dbc0e0a9b24bc917a6b4f98b43c0ffdc

OK

Comment 4 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-02-05 15:36:25 UTC
(In reply to Pranav Kant from comment #3)
> This is an unofficial review.
> 
> Please correct following issues before a full review of this package.
> 
> Issues:
> * Package contains duplicates in %files.
>   File listed twice: /etc/burp/CA-client
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
> * %clean is not required at all
> * There is no need to run rm -rf %{buildroot} at beginning %install.
> * Your %files section contains defattr which is not needed anymore.

I have corrected the issues listed above and uploaded a new spec file and source rpm.

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-2.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 5 Pranav Kant 2015-02-07 10:56:39 UTC
Few more things I found, that can be corrected in your SPEC file :

- As according to this : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image , the LICENSE file should be moved from %doc to %license.

- This is just a suggestion : you should list all the BuildRequires in separate lines. It is easier to compare SPEC files this way. Eg: when a diff between two spec files are done.

- I can see your spec file contains a mixture of tabs and spaces. See the Name: field and URL: field. It would be better if you untabify the file i.e only use spaces to make it consistent.

Comment 6 Christopher Meng 2015-02-07 12:39:35 UTC
I submitted this long ago, see bug 1002092.

My original SPEC is here: http://pastebin.com/RBfJLyL6

Please add me as comaintainer once you successfully package this into the repo(my FAS ID: cicku), thanks.

Comment 7 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-02-09 18:10:09 UTC
(In reply to Pranav Kant from comment #5)
> Few more things I found, that can be corrected in your SPEC file :
> 
> - As according to this :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/
> Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image , the LICENSE file
> should be moved from %doc to %license.
> 
> - This is just a suggestion : you should list all the BuildRequires in
> separate lines. It is easier to compare SPEC files this way. Eg: when a diff
> between two spec files are done.
> 
> - I can see your spec file contains a mixture of tabs and spaces. See the
> Name: field and URL: field. It would be better if you untabify the file i.e
> only use spaces to make it consistent.

I have fixed the issues, there wasn't a mix of spaces, just an extra tab character. I also added the %licence macro that was new to me and split each BR to its own line.

My updated files are located here:
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-3.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 8 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-02-09 18:26:17 UTC
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
> I submitted this long ago, see bug 1002092.
> 
> My original SPEC is here: http://pastebin.com/RBfJLyL6
> 
> Please add me as comaintainer once you successfully package this into the
> repo(my FAS ID: cicku), thanks.

I can add you to the package when it is added to the repos.

Comment 9 Mario Blättermann 2015-02-15 12:10:26 UTC
Your package installs only the service file for systemd. Have a look at the needed scriptlets to handle systemd stuff properly:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

Comment 10 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-02-23 18:56:50 UTC
I have updated and tested the spec file and fixed the systemd service issues.

The updated files are located here:
SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-4.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 11 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-03-17 15:42:26 UTC
Any progress on this?

Comment 12 Thomas Spura 2015-03-17 15:52:01 UTC
The conditionals for systemd seems to be missing some stuff, as you are mixing systemd with chkconfig.
See:
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd?rd=Packaging:Guidelines:Systemd
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

How about taking a working package as example for the scriptlets, such as fail2ban?
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/fail2ban.git/tree/fail2ban.spec

Did you test this on Fedora also? It should (looks to) be working on 0%{?rhel}.

Comment 13 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-03-17 18:58:55 UTC
Thanks for the comments Thomas, I was using an example from a previous SPEC file I wrote. I guess it wasn't very good and have adjusted it to follow how fail2ban packages. I just tested on Fedora 20 and verified that the server works as expected. It also continues to work on RHEL 6.

The updated files are located here:
SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-5.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 14 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-03-24 14:02:01 UTC
Uploaded updated SRPM built against the new version of librsync that was released to the repos recently.

SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-5.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 15 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-04-16 22:21:33 UTC
Bump... any status updates?

Comment 17 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-07 21:38:45 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #16)
> Please, update to
> https://github.com/grke/burp/releases/tag/1.4.36
> or better
> https://github.com/grke/burp/releases/tag/2.0.18

No, those are not 'stable' yet. 1.4.36 is the stable candidate and 2.0.18 is in beta. 1.3.48 is the latest stable version and should be the one that goes into the repo

Comment 18 gil cattaneo 2015-05-07 21:42:51 UTC
(In reply to Andrew Niemantsverdriet from comment #17)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #16)
> > Please, update to
> > https://github.com/grke/burp/releases/tag/1.4.36
> > or better
> > https://github.com/grke/burp/releases/tag/2.0.18
> 
> No, those are not 'stable' yet. 1.4.36 is the stable candidate and 2.0.18 is
> in beta. 1.3.48 is the latest stable version and should be the one that goes
> into the repo

ok, thanks for the explanation

Comment 19 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-08 13:39:39 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #18) 
> ok, thanks for the explanation

Yeah, no problem. When I first started using this project I too was confused with the version numbering.

Comment 20 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 01:10:23 UTC
Build fails: Error: No Package found for uthash
please, add uthash-devel as build requires

Comment 21 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-09 01:33:37 UTC
Updated the spec file.

The updated file is located here:
SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec

Comment 22 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 01:45:41 UTC
(In reply to Andrew Niemantsverdriet from comment #21)
> Updated the spec file.
> 
> The updated file is located here:
> SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec

and the src rpm?

Comment 23 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-09 02:26:33 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #22)
> (In reply to Andrew Niemantsverdriet from comment #21)
> > Updated the spec file.
> > 
> > The updated file is located here:
> > SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
> 
> and the src rpm?

Just finished testing it and uploaded it here: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.3.48-6.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 24 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 02:49:20 UTC
Sorry, but there are some problems

backup_phase2_server.c: In function 'int process_changed_file(sbuf*, sbuf*, const char*, const char*, const char*, int*, cntr*, config*)':
backup_phase2_server.c:483:42: error: 'RS_DEFAULT_STRONG_LEN' was not declared in this scope
  if(!(p1b->sigjob=rs_sig_begin(blocklen, RS_DEFAULT_STRONG_LEN)))

RPM build errors:
    File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/burp.service
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps  /builddir/build/SPECS/burp.spec 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace
    result = func(*args, **kw)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 504, in do
    raise exception.Error("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps  /builddir/build/SPECS/burp.spec 
LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9692762

Comment 25 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 02:51:44 UTC
https://github.com/grke/burp/issues/273

Comment 26 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-09 03:28:00 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #25)
> https://github.com/grke/burp/issues/273

Thought we got this fixed, working with upstream for the fix

Comment 27 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-09 13:47:55 UTC
After talking with the developer 1.4.36 is going to become the new stable version.

The updated files are located here:
SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.4.36-1.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 28 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 19:41:39 UTC
build fail: %{_unitdir} is not defined

RPM build errors:
    File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/burp.service
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps  /builddir/build/SPECS/burp.spec 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 84, in trace
    result = func(*args, **kw)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 504, in do
    raise exception.Error("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps  /builddir/build/SPECS/burp.spec 
LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED

Comment 29 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 19:42:52 UTC
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9698382

Comment 30 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 19:57:45 UTC
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9698391

Comment 31 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-09 21:37:04 UTC
I have added the BuildRequire of systemd-units which should fix that failure:

The updated files are located here:
SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.4.36-2.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 32 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 22:45:41 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- 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 %doc.
  Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
 IGNORE

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated", "GPL (vtwo)", "*No copyright* GPL (vtwo)", "BSD
     (2 clause)". 133 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gil/1186819-burp/review-burp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
     /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/systemd
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[?]: 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
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: burp-1.4.36-2.fc23.i386.rpm
          burp-1.4.36-2.fc23.src.rpm
burp.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librsync -> library
burp.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/burp/burp.conf
burp.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/burp/autoupgrade/server/win64/script
burp.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/burp/burp-server.conf
burp.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/burp/CA.cnf
burp.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/burp/clientconfdir/testclient
burp.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/burp/autoupgrade/server/win32/script
burp.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/burp/clientconfdir/incexc/example
burp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librsync -> library
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
burp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/env
    libacl.so.1
    libacl.so.1(ACL_1.0)
    libc.so.6
    libcrypt.so.1
    libcrypto.so.10
    libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libm.so.6
    libncurses.so.5
    librsync.so.2
    libssl.so.10
    libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    libtinfo.so.5
    libz.so.1
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)
    openssl-perl
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
burp:
    burp
    burp(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/grke/burp/archive/1.4.36.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 64794d1f5eee2fa03f4fa2b06c0b2cdfc6653670e9fa734935dc3fdbf946f36d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64794d1f5eee2fa03f4fa2b06c0b2cdfc6653670e9fa734935dc3fdbf946f36d


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vpn burp -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Comment 33 gil cattaneo 2015-05-09 22:46:24 UTC
ISSUES:

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated", "GPL (vtwo)", "*No copyright* GPL (vtwo)", "BSD
     (2 clause)". 133 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gil/1186819-burp/review-burp/licensecheck.txt
*No copyright* GPL (vtwo)
-------------------------
burp-1.4.36/src/bc_types.h
burp-1.4.36/src/bfile.c
burp-1.4.36/src/bfile.h
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/compat/dlfcn.h
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/compat/getopt.h
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/compat/winapi.c
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/compat/winhost.h
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/libwin32/protos.h
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/libwin32/res.h

BSD (2 clause)
--------------
burp-1.4.36/uthash/uthash.h

GPL (v2 or later)
-----------------
burp-1.4.36/autoconf/ltmain.sh

GPL (vtwo)
----------
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/libwin32/win32.h

LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
-------------------------------------------------
burp-1.4.36/src/rs_buf.c
burp-1.4.36/src/rs_buf.h
burp-1.4.36/src/win32/compat/sys/mtio.h


/*
   This function is taken from the zlib example code,
   zpipe.c: example of proper use of zlib's inflate() and deflate()
   Not copyrighted -- provided to the public domain
   Version 1.4  11 December 2005  Mark Adler */
license is Public Domain ?
burp-1.4.36/src/zlibio.c

license field should be: AGPLv3 and BSD and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+

[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 burp-1.4.36/src/win32/compat/getopt.c licensed under IBM copyrights ... BSD

 burp-1.4.36/src/win32/compat/print.cpp

Comment 34 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-12 14:21:17 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #33)
> license field should be: AGPLv3 and BSD and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+

I have updated the licence field.

The new files are here:
SPEC URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp-1.4.36-3.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 35 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-12 16:00:20 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: burp
Short Description: A network-based backup and restore program
Upstream URL: http://burp.grke.org/
Owners: kaptk2
Branches: f20 f21 f22 el5 el6 epel7
InitialCC: cicku

Comment 36 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-05-12 17:44:46 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 37 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-13 20:32:56 UTC
What am I missing? I can't get this to build for el6 the build log is here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=9726275&name=build.log&offset=-4000

The .spec file is here: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec

Comment 38 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-13 21:20:59 UTC
(In reply to Andrew Niemantsverdriet from comment #37)
> What am I missing? I can't get this to build for el6 the build log is here:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=9726275&name=build.
> log&offset=-4000
> 
> The .spec file is here: https://fedorapeople.org/~kaptk2/burp.spec

Never mind premature, I got it figured out

Comment 39 Fedora Update System 2015-05-14 14:05:02 UTC
burp-1.4.36-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-5.fc22

Comment 40 Fedora Update System 2015-05-14 14:07:07 UTC
burp-1.4.36-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-5.fc21

Comment 41 Fedora Update System 2015-05-14 14:08:14 UTC
burp-1.4.36-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-5.fc20

Comment 42 Fedora Update System 2015-05-14 14:10:09 UTC
burp-1.4.36-5.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-5.el7

Comment 43 Fedora Update System 2015-05-14 14:11:35 UTC
burp-1.4.36-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-5.el6

Comment 44 Andrew Niemantsverdriet 2015-05-14 14:18:05 UTC
Successfully built packages, thanks for all the help.

Comment 45 Fedora Update System 2015-05-15 15:00:38 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-6.el6

Comment 46 Fedora Update System 2015-05-15 15:33:55 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-6.fc20

Comment 47 Fedora Update System 2015-05-15 15:49:43 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-6.fc21

Comment 48 Fedora Update System 2015-05-15 15:50:35 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-6.el7

Comment 49 Fedora Update System 2015-05-15 16:02:17 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/burp-1.4.36-6.fc22

Comment 50 Fedora Update System 2015-06-04 15:58:10 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 51 Fedora Update System 2015-06-04 15:58:45 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 52 Fedora Update System 2015-06-05 23:45:12 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 53 Fedora Update System 2015-06-05 23:52:17 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 54 Fedora Update System 2015-06-06 00:12:48 UTC
burp-1.4.36-6.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.