Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//BackupPC-XS.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//BackupPC-XS-0.52-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: .
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18380284
This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required.
Ok, I meant to go back and fill the description but forgot. Fixed. Not worried about parallel make for such a small package, and it looks like the makefile is not designed to support it as the builds fail when used. Since the changes were editorial I re-uploaded the spec and SRPM so the links are still good.
Thanks for the quick review!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/BackupPC-XS
This package has many issues: It bundles zlib. Link it to system zlib instead. Or declare `Provides: bundled(zlib)'. It's missing these build-requries: bash (configure.sh:1) gcc (builds C code, this must be explicitly build-required per C packaging guidelines) make (BackupPC-XS.spec:31) perl(constant) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:16) perl(Exporter) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:7) perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) (Makefile.PL:2) perl(strict) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:4) perl(warnings) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:5) perl(XSLoader) (lib/BackupPC/XS.pm:60) It packages /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/.packlist file. It should not be packaged. You can solve it by adding NO_PACKACKLIST=1 argument to "perl Makefile.PL" call in the spec file. The /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/BackupPC/XS/XS.so has wrong permissions (0555). Fix it by executing "%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}" in the %install section. It's missing these licenses: The ppport.h file compiled into executable is licensed as (GPL+ or Artistic). The bundked zlib is licensed as (zlib). None of them are mentioned in the License tag.
Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it provides nothing but Perl bindings only. README is not a pure license file, ca be considered as %doc. As for BR list, please follow one style, and don't mix multiple BRs in one line.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #8) > Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it > provides nothing but Perl bindings only. In hindsight it would probably be a good idea but not worth a package rename. The guidelines only reference naming of CPAN modules[1] so they could be more clear. > README is not a pure license file, ca be considered as %doc. Fixed. > As for BR list, please follow one style, and don't mix multiple BRs in one > line. I typically do one per line but like to group ones that are tightly linked together, in this case perl and perl-devel. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#perl_modules
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #9) > (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #8) > > Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it > > provides nothing but Perl bindings only. > > In hindsight it would probably be a good idea but not worth a package > rename. The guidelines only reference naming of CPAN modules[1] so they > could be more clear. BTW, it's provided on CPAN: https://metacpan.org/pod/BackupPC::XS I always considered it a CPAN module. So naming it with "perl" prefix definitely would be more clear.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #10) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #9) > > (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #8) > > > Also, I do believe the package should be called "perl-BackupPC-XS" since it > > > provides nothing but Perl bindings only. > > > > In hindsight it would probably be a good idea but not worth a package > > rename. The guidelines only reference naming of CPAN modules[1] so they > > could be more clear. > > BTW, it's provided on CPAN: https://metacpan.org/pod/BackupPC::XS > I always considered it a CPAN module. So naming it with "perl" prefix > definitely would be more clear. Well, google failed me then. In either case, since it's only used with BackupPC and not intended to be used by anyone else I don't think it's worth changing at this point.
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.