Spec URL: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/mindi-busybox.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/mindi-busybox-1.7.3-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Busybox version suited for Mindi Reason for having a dedicated version of busybox: The project has the need for precise functions built-in and some other *NOT* built in (such as modules support). the project keeps using an older version of busybox as that binary is critical for MondoRescue, and It's not possible to test newer versions all the time. Project needs a very stable busybox for the recovery environment, for which e.g. NFS is no problem ... (contrary to some other versions, ...)
550 "no such file" for both.
Sorry for that. The version is now official for upstream and available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/10/mindi-busybox-1.7.3-1.fc10.src.rpm and the SPEC at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/10/mindi-busybox.spec
rpmlint has no complaints
I don't understand comments #4 and #5. What has mpich2 to do with mindi-busybox? Just a comment about the name of the package. A saw Anaconda also has its special version of busybox and it is named busybox-anaconda.
please ignore comment #4 and #5, thanks
./SPECS/mindi-busybox.spec:20: W: setup-not-quiet 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # You might need a '-q' for setup.
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] # Need a bug filed in bugzilla and put the number next to the ExcludeArch line. MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. # gcc is in exceptions which is not needed. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] # Need a line "%find_lang %{name}" in %install section.
Created Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588550 for lack of power PC support. gcc dep has been removed mindi and mindi-busybox is not localized at the moment. A new intermediate version of the packge is now available at: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/12/mindi-busybox-1.7.3-0.20100504003616.fc12.src.rpm and ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/12/mindi-busybox.spec Let me know if it looks better now
Caius https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support the bug is supposed to be filed after the package has been accepted since it doesn't yet have a component in bugzilla to file against. its not a blocker not being in bugzilla. but there should eb a description why in the spec that will be swapped out for the bug info post acceptance.
I had been reviewing this request as a brand new package. I am not sure if this is duplicated to an existing component but in different version or else.
I'd like to get feedback on this request. My latest version is available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/16/x86_64/mindi-busybox.spec and ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/16/x86_64/mindi-busybox-1.18.5-0.20111114000556.fc16.src.rpm TIA for anyone able to help.
Hi Bruno, Are you still interested in this package? I'm willing to help. But... 1. Can you tell us your FAS username? I think that you are not a packager of Fedora. YOu may need sponsor still. 2, Can you update it to the latest version, and paste the URLs to here again? Cheers.
1/ My FAS account is bcornec 2/ The latest versions are now available here: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/19/x86_64/mindi-busybox-1.18.5-3.fc19.src.rpm ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/19/x86_64/mindi-busybox.spec
Are you going to support EL6? If not please remove: 1. BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -u -n) BuildRequires: gcc-c++ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %defattr(-,root,root) 2. %doc ChangeLog INSTALL LICENSE AUTHORS README TODO NEWS shouldn't include INSTALL file(MUST) %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog LICENSE NEWS README TODO 3. No need to add Homepage: http://www.mondorescue.org in the description, you can add it to the mindi package.)But I think people use it should know some bits of it.... ;) ( 4. %setup -q -n %name-%{version} should be %setup -q as this is shorter. (RPM defaults, %setup -q --> %setup -q -n %name-%{version} )
I do support RHEL. The other modifications should be better with the version here: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/19/x86_64/mindi-busybox-1.18.520130910014540-0.fc19.src.rpm and ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/19/x86_64/mindi-busybox.spec Thanks for your help
The "fedora-review" flag here has been set to '?', which means this ticket has only been shown on the list of "Tickets under review" and not on the list of NEW review requests, and neither on the NEEDSPONSOR list: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus The reviewer probably has dropped the ball, and the "Assigned To" field has been changed several times in 2010-2013, but the fedora-review flag has been forgotten. [...] Has anyone run "fedora-review -b 476234" yet and perused its results?
* Found bundled MD5 implementations. Also affects "busybox". Filed bug 1024549. * fedora-review tool license check recognises a long list of used licenses: *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) BSD (3 clause) -> e.g. libbb, libpwdgrp and runit files BSD (4 clause) -> disabled inetd.c : BSD with advertizing would be GPL-incompatible Beerware GPL -> actually GPL v2 or later in a comment GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) MIT/X11 (BSD like) -> shell/math.c has been adapted and relicensed to GPL v2+ Perl -> an example script only Public domain Unknown or generated Although several source files apply BSD licensing only, the resulting executable is supposed to be "GPL v2" indeed according to the file "LICENSE". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F > make busybox Calling "make V=1 busybox" would turn on verbose build (resulting in KBUILD_VERBOSE=1), so one gets to see compiler/linker flags and options. > BuildRoot > %clean A comment whether the spec file is supposed to stay compatible with EL5 would be helpful: https:// fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > %defattr(-,root,root) is not needed anymore for any of the active dist releases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
Bruno has been sponsored (fas name bcornec) therefore removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
There has been no progress on this in a couple of years Bruno do you still intend to have this reviewed? If there is no response within one week as per policy it will be closed so that others may take it up if they are interested to do so. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Yes. Still want to provide it. We're now making progress on buffer on which I'll concentrate effortd first. Then I'll work on this one again.
buffer has now been built for fedora, so I'd like to work on this one again. I've requested the package on branch master
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/mindi-busybox
Updating package references in order to run fedora-review and prepare upload ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/23/x86_64/mindi-busybox-1.21.1-1.fc23.src.rpm ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/23/x86_64/mindi-busybox.spec
(In reply to Bruno Cornec from comment #23) > buffer has now been built for fedora, so I'd like to work on this one again. > I've requested the package on branch master The package needs to pass review before it can be imported into Fedora/you can request a branch. It seems there was an oversight, therefore I retired the package for now. Once the review is done, you can request it to be unretired. Btw. I noticed that the package is not yet using %license. Also I would prefer I comment about why you do not want to build a debug package.
This appears to have stalled out. I'm going to close this to get it off the tracker [0], but feel free to re-open it if/when you're able to pick it back up. [0]: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
New try with these newly built packages for fedora 33: SRPM: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/33/x86_64/mindi-busybox-1.25.1-0.20201126002730.s3777M.fc33.src.rpm SPEC: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/33/x86_64/mindi-busybox.spec Let me know how I can improve that and hopefully unblock the full MondoRescue chain as I'm working on it again.
- Use %global not %define %global srcname mindi-busybox - Release should start at 1. Also please explain the extra release parameters: Release: 0.20201126002730.s3777M%{dist} - This ned to be justified usually: # Cf: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588550 ExcludeArch: ppc We don't support ppc anymore, only ppc64le. - Please justify this or fix the package to make debuginfo work: # Avoids to generate debug packages %global debug_package %{nil} The issue seems to be that busybox is stripped by the build process: strip -s --remove-section=.note --remove-section=.comment \ busybox_unstripped -o busybox - Please provide the patch unzipped: Patch0: 02-stime.fedora-33.gz - Please add a comment explaining what the patch does or why it is needed Not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %defattr(-,root,root) - The license file must be included with %license in %files: %doc ChangeLog AUTHORS README TODO NEWS %license LICENSE - Add a BR for make - Use %make_build instead of make X - Use %set_build_flags before make to use Fedora build flags
Bruno, If you still want to include this package in Fedora, please clear the needinfo tag and explain how you intend to continue. The first thing to do is to address comments that have been already give. After that, I can review. If you do not intend to continue, just leave the tag in place and this request should be automatically closed in a month.
Indeed I intend to adapt the specfile so it matches Fedora's requirements, and will work on it. However, don't expect a quick return as I'm also working on upstream modifications as well.
Ok, thank you for the update. Just send an updated spec when it is ready so the review can continue.
Bruno, when your package becomes ready for a review, simply remove "NotReady" from the Whiteboard field.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The submitter account doesn't exist anymore, therefore this ticket will be closed.