Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//rsync-bpc.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Rsync-bpc is a customized version of rsync that is used as part of BackupPC, an open source backup system. The main change to rsync is adding a shim layer (in the subdirectory backuppc, and in bpc_sysCalls.c) that emulates the system calls for accessing the file system so that rsync can directly read/write files in BackupPC's format. Rsync-bpc is fully line-compatible with vanilla rsync, so it can talk to rsync servers and clients. Rsync-bpc serves no purpose outside of BackupPC.
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18379382
Can you remove gcc (not needed) and fix misspellings? Rpmlint ------- Checking: rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rsync-bpc-debuginfo-3.0.9.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-1.fc24.src.rpm rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Rsync-bpc rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdirectory -> sub directory, sub-directory, directory rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backuppc -> backup rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysCalls -> miscalls rsync-bpc.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/rsync_bpc rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rsync_bpc rsync-bpc.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Rsync-bpc rsync-bpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdirectory -> sub directory, sub-directory, directory rsync-bpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backuppc -> backup rsync-bpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysCalls -> miscalls 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rsync-bpc-debuginfo-3.0.9.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Rsync-bpc rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdirectory -> sub directory, sub-directory, directory rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backuppc -> backup rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysCalls -> miscalls rsync-bpc.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/rsync_bpc rsync-bpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rsync_bpc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
(In reply to Benjamin Lefoul from comment #2) > Can you remove gcc (not needed) and fix misspellings? Per the packaging guidelines[1] we should not assume that it will be available in the standard buildroot in the future. Which spellings do you think need to be changed? Two of the three are intentional and while subdirectory may not be part of the standard dictionary I don't think it's wrong.
Don't worry about the spellings, they're actually fine. I'll finish the review in a moment.
rsync-bpc.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/rsync_bpc This is often a false positive, any comment? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s).....(it does) [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rsync- bpc-debuginfo [x]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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.
(In reply to Benjamin Lefoul from comment #5) > > rsync-bpc.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/rsync_bpc > This is often a false positive, any comment? I'm not really sure but I ran rpmlint on the rsync package and it gets the same error so I assume if it's actually a problem then once it's fixed in the rsync package it can be fixed here. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I tried running "make check" but it fails, I don't think Craig updated the test to work with his fork.
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #6) > (In reply to Benjamin Lefoul from comment #5) > > > > rsync-bpc.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/rsync_bpc > > This is often a false positive, any comment? > > I'm not really sure but I ran rpmlint on the rsync package and it gets the > same error so I assume if it's actually a problem then once it's fixed in > the rsync package it can be fixed here. Fair enough. > > > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > I tried running "make check" but it fails, I don't think Craig updated the > test to work with his fork. OK. This is not not a MUST item, but it would be nice to know if the fork breaks the tests. If you want to ask him, can you CC the ML (I'm reading backuppc-users.net)? Apart from that this is good for approval.
Ok, emailed backuppc-devel (more appropriate for that list) and I'll report any response.
Already got a response, currently no plans to adapt the tests to work...
OK! Now we know :)
Packaging TODO is superfluous here, it provides Rsync project related info only. Please mention bundled zlib, and bring BRs list in order, e.g. as with Rsync: ... BuildRequires: autoconf BuildRequires: libacl-devel BuildRequires: libattr-devel BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: popt-devel Also, perl is not needed in BRs. As for package branches, do you plan supporting it for epel7? It would be much appreciated.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #11) > Packaging TODO is superfluous here, it provides Rsync project related info > only. > Please mention bundled zlib, and bring BRs list in order, e.g. as with Rsync: > ... > BuildRequires: autoconf > BuildRequires: libacl-devel > BuildRequires: libattr-devel > BuildRequires: make > BuildRequires: popt-devel > Also, perl is not needed in BRs. Mostly fixed. I don't think make is in danger of being removed from the default buildroot anytime soon... > As for package branches, do you plan supporting it for epel7? > It would be much appreciated. Yes, and EL6 but I haven't decided if I'm going to pursue an official BackupPC4 package or just use a COPR. The BackupPC spec file is a mess and I'm struggling to get it compliant with current guidelines.
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #12) > Yes, and EL6 but I haven't decided if I'm going to pursue an official > BackupPC4 package or just use a COPR. The BackupPC spec file is a mess and > I'm struggling to get it compliant with current guidelines. Not sure whether providing it for EL6 makes sense. But as for epel7, there shouldn't be any issues with the package itself.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rsync-bpc
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #13) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #12) > > Yes, and EL6 but I haven't decided if I'm going to pursue an official > > BackupPC4 package or just use a COPR. The BackupPC spec file is a mess and > > I'm struggling to get it compliant with current guidelines. > > Not sure whether providing it for EL6 makes sense. But as for epel7, there > shouldn't be any issues with the package itself. Well in either case (a backuppc4 package or COPR) it's easy enough to support since the spec already takes care of SysV init and SystemD... Right now I'm trying to get apache to play nice with the C wrapper so the BackupPC_Admin perl script can run suid.
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc26 rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3f27cfadc0
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc25 rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2d89031806
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.el7 rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7cdafde337
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc26, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3f27cfadc0
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc25, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2d89031806
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.el7, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7cdafde337
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc26, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.fc25, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
BackupPC-XS-0.53-1.el7, rsync-bpc-3.0.9.5-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.