Spec URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync.spec SRPM URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync-0.10-2.fc26.src.rpm Description: Bdsync can be used to synchronize block devices over a network. It generates a "binary patchfile" in an efficient way by comparing MD5 checksums of 32k blocks of the local block device LOCDEV and the remote block device REMDEV. This binary patchfile can be sent to the remote machine and applied to its block device DSTDEV, after which the local blockdev LOCDEV and the remote block device REMDEV are synchronized. bdsync was built to do the only thing rsync isn't able to do: synchronize block devices. Fedora Account System Username: error Note: rpmlint produces an error: bdsync.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bdsync/COPYING This has been reported upstream as https://github.com/TargetHolding/bdsync/pull/15
This is an unofficial review of the package: I see these warnings when I run rpmlint: bdsync.src: W: no-url-tag Can you please add an URL tag? bdsync.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bdsync/COPYING You might have put the address wrong for the above. And under license, can you mention GPLv2 or GPLv3 instead of just GPL. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview In %install, removing buildroot is optional and should be removed We don't need %clean section anymore. ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
Very strange, the files I had locally did not match what was on fedorapeople.org. I've uploaded fresh copies. (In reply to Sachidananda Urs from comment #1) > I see these warnings when I run rpmlint: > > bdsync.src: W: no-url-tag > > Can you please add an URL tag? This URL tag is already present. It was missing from the old copy of the spec file for some reason. > bdsync.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bdsync/COPYING > > You might have put the address wrong for the above. As I already mentioned, I reported this problem upstream. > And under license, can you mention GPLv2 or GPLv3 instead of just GPL. The spec file lists the License: as GPLv2, which is what upstream says. > In %install, removing buildroot is optional and should be removed > We don't need %clean section anymore. > ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections No such directives are in the spec file.
There's a new 0.10.1 release, which includes the COPYING fixes.
I would also like to see this package added to Fedora.
(In reply to Michael Hampton from comment #0) Would you update your SPEC for a review?
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > (In reply to Michael Hampton from comment #0) > Would you update your SPEC for a review? Spec URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync.spec SRPM URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync-0.10.2-1.fc29.src.rpm rpmlint returns only spelling-errors for things that aren't actually misspelled.
- Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root) %attr(755,root,root) It is the default already. - Build are by default hardened as well: %global _hardened_build 1 - use %set_build_flags to set Fedora default flags: %build %set_build_flags %make_build - Give your archive a better name: Source: https://github.com/TargetHolding/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bdsync/review-bdsync/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bdsync- debuginfo , bdsync-debugsource [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: bdsync-0.10.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm bdsync-debuginfo-0.10.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm bdsync-debugsource-0.10.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm bdsync-0.10.2-1.fc30.src.rpm bdsync.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US patchfile -> patch file, patch-file, patchily bdsync.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksums -> check sums, check-sums, checks bdsync.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US blockdev -> blockade bdsync.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsync -> sync, r sync bdsync.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US patchfile -> patch file, patch-file, patchily bdsync.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksums -> check sums, check-sums, checks bdsync.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US blockdev -> blockade bdsync.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsync -> sync, r sync 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7) > - Not needed: > > %defattr(-,root,root) > > %attr(755,root,root) > > It is the default already. > > - Build are by default hardened as well: %global _hardened_build 1 > > - use %set_build_flags to set Fedora default flags: > > %build > %set_build_flags > %make_build > > - Give your archive a better name: > > Source: > https://github.com/TargetHolding/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}- > %{version}.tar.gz Spec URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync.spec SRPM URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync-0.10.2-2.fc29.src.rpm All of these changes have been made now, in 0.10.2-2
My bad, mail slipped through the cracks. Package approved.
Still there? The package was approved, you can import it.
*** Bug 1729716 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Sorry I didn't see this before submitting my version. I submit that this is a stalled review and if no answer from the submitter in 1 week, will close it. Hopefully Michael is still around, just busy. :)
Sorry, I apparently also missed the original mail back when. I've requested the repo and will be packaging this as soon as it is created. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/13407
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bdsync
Package is now built and rebased to latest upstream. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1314176