[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
bup-0.27-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
bup-0.27-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-29 17:24:32



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
bup-0.27-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-2015-7349d4e979

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
bup-0.27-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7349d4e979

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
bup-0.27-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update bup'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c35b007349

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
bup-0.27-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c35b007349

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #21 from Tadej Janež  ---
William, thanks again for the review and approval!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/bup

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #20 from William Moreno  ---
Packaged Aproved


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #18 from William Moreno  ---
There is a unversioned .so library than you must package as a -devel subpackage
or request upstream to use a versioned version of the file.

Please see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages

The web subpackage must requires the same arched main package, change too:
Requires: bup %{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

Just check this issue and I will aprove this package.

Package Review
==

= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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:
[!]: 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. 
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= 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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #19 from Tadej Janež  ---
William,

(In reply to William Moreno from comment #18)
> There is a unversioned .so library than you must package as a -devel
> subpackage or request upstream to use a versioned version of the file.
> 
> Please see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.
> so_name_versioning
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages

as I said in comment #8, the _helpers.so file represents a private shared
library which is not meant for development purposes, rather it is an essential
part of bup (you can check this with a simple 'grep -rni _helpers' on the bup
source code directory).

The guidelines you point to [1] actually state:
"As an additional complication, some software generates unversioned shared
objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries. These files are
usually plugins or modular functionality specific to an application, and are
not located in the ld library paths or cache. This means that they are not
located directly in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64, or in a directory listed as a
library path in /etc/ld.so.conf (or an /etc/ld.so.conf.d/config file). Usually,
these unversioned shared objects can be found in a dedicated subdirectory under
/usr/lib or /usr/lib64 (e.g. /usr/lib/purple-2/ is the plugin directory used
for libpurple applications). In these cases, the unversioned shared objects do
not need to be placed in a -devel package."

To sum up, /usr/lib64/bup/bup/_helpers.so is an unversioned so-file that is in
a private %_libdir subdirectory which is not in ld path. Therefore, it does not
need to be placed in a -devel subpackage.

> The web subpackage must requires the same arched main package, change too:
> Requires: bup %{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

Good catch, thanks!

Fixed it. Here is the: 
- new Spec URL: https://github.com/tjanez/bup-package/blob/f04700b/bup.spec
- new SRPM URL: https://tadej.fedorapeople.org/bup-0.27-0.4.fc23.src.rpm

> Just check this issue and I will aprove this package.

Great, thanks!

Best regards,
Tadej

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #17 from Tadej Janež  ---
Hi William,

thanks for a re-review!

(In reply to William Moreno from comment #9)
> you should ask upstream about python3 support
> as part of:
> 
> http://portingdb-encukou.rhcloud.com/

Agreed, I'll ask upstream about Python3 support.

On a related note, I'm pushing upstream to accept a patch that detects the
correct version of Python 2 and places it as a shebang in all bup commands:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bup-list/sF6SC0zNowg/7grBUs5bDgAJ

(In reply to William Moreno from comment #15)
> Last review here:
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/295213/48646777/

I would suggest that you also paste it here as a comment so the whole review
will be archived here.

> Fix the empty %postun in the spec.

I think this rpmlint warning should be ignored.

Systemd's %systemd_user_postun_with_restart macro is currently defined as
%{nil} [1], hence the rpmlint warning.

However, this may change in the future, so I think it is better to include it
in the SPEC file.


[1]
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/src/core/macros.systemd.in#L73

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #16 from William Moreno  ---
Thanks Dan for the feedbak about the s390 build, so please fix the macros in
%postun.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #10 from William Moreno  ---
Test Build:

s390: http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1993939
ppc: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2935262
arm: http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3297728

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||485231
   ||(F-ExcludeArch-s390x)



--- Comment #11 from William Moreno  ---
s390 builds still fails, you MUST include a ExcludeArch: s390 tag in your spec.
Please wait I finish the review to update the spec.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485231
[Bug 485231] ExcludeArch Tracker for s390x
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of bup-0.27-0.3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11988462

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #13 from William Moreno  ---
rpmlint bup-web-0.27-0.3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
bup-web.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

Dan Horák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||d...@danny.cz



--- Comment #14 from Dan Horák  ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #11)
> s390 builds still fails, you MUST include a ExcludeArch: s390 tag in your
> spec. Please wait I finish the review to update the spec.

But the problem on s390 is broken buildroot for GHC, so not bup's fault, and we
are going to fix it with the planned GHC 7.10 rebase in F-24. No need to
exclude s390/s390x.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #9 from William Moreno  ---
I will run again the review, you should ask upstream about python3 support as
part of:

http://portingdb-encukou.rhcloud.com/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #8 from Tadej Janež  ---
Hi William,

thanks for the review!

Sorry that it took so long to reply. While fixing the package, I encountered
some problems that needed quite some time to get fixed.

(In reply to William Moreno from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Need Work:
> [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>  Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>  attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

I assume you are referring to /usr/lib64/bup/bup/_helpers.so, which is also
listed below.
The _helpers.so file represents a private shared library which is not meant for
development purposes, rather it is an essential part of bup (you can check this
with a simple 'grep -rni _helpers' on the bup source code directory).
Since it is a private shared library, it shouldn't be added as "Provides" for
other packages [1].

> 2- There is a daemon command than work as a system service so you will to
> provide a unit service file to handle the service with systemd.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd

Done.

I've decided to split-out "bup web" into a separate subpackage.
Since the nature of "bup web" is to run a web server for browsing through bup
repositories, it only makes sense to provide a systemd unit file for running
"bup web" as a service with the systemd user instance (i.e. 'systemd --user').

Along the way, I discovered that there are no guidelines for packaging user
instance services [2].
I also encountered two bugs while trying to use systemd's %systemd_user_post
macro and fixed them [3].
To make it easier for the user who would want to use the bup-web user service,
I've written a Fedora README [4].

> Test Builds:
> Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11351834 (Failed)
> ARM:  http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3219703 (Failed)
> PPC:  http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2785514 (Failed)
> S390: http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1953880
> (Failed)
> 
> My local build run fine in mock but al kojis test build in rawhide are
> failing see:
> Can't locate Time/HiRes.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Time::HiRes
> module) (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5
> /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5
> /usr/share/perl5 .) at ./wvtestrun line 10.
> BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at ./wvtestrun line 10.
> Makefile:130: recipe for target 'test' failed
> 
> Looks like a missing BuildRequires

Yes, it was a missing BuildRequires. Fixed.

Subsequently, I encountered a problem with a failing test. I temporarily
disabled it, as you suggested and I'm working with upstream to fix it.

> Unversioned so-files
> 
> bup: /usr/lib64/bup/bup/_helpers.so

Already addressed above.

The new Spec URL: https://github.com/tjanez/bup-package/blob/ff9588f/bup.spec
The new SRPM URL: https://tadej.fedorapeople.org/bup-0.27-0.3.fc23.src.rpm

Thanks and best regards,
Tadej


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering

[2]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging%40lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/VKTC6FSQGX6DUQAZHC7F6ZEUFXHRTD4F/

[3] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/1986

[4]
https://github.com/tjanez/bup-package/blob/ff9588fa67e6e431c24371c673b9e32656b362d7/README-bup-web.Fedora.md

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
tadej's scratch build of bup-0.27-0.2.fc21.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11445764

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
I see in the last build than %%prep %%build and %%install work fine, but the
issue is with the test, maybe disabling test for now and work with upstream or
pathing the faling tests can work.

WvTest: 2432 tests, 2 failures, total time 9.778s.

To failures of 2432 tests do not look like a bloquer.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
tadej's scratch build of bup-0.27-0.1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11361477

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
tadej's scratch build of bup-0.27-0.2.fc21.src.rpm for rawhide failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11361744

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||i...@cicku.me



--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng  ---
Have been tracking bup for 3 years, I'd like to say it's good to be packaged
into Fedora.

You need to add some missing BRs for testing, and drop all programs which
require /usr/bin/env.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #2 from William Moreno  ---
Package Review
==

Need Work:
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

1- Create a -devel subpackage

2- There is a daemon command than work as a system service so you will to
provide a unit service file to handle the service with systemd.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd

Test Builds:
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11351834 (Failed)
ARM:  http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3219703 (Failed)
PPC:  http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2785514 (Failed)
S390: http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1953880 (Failed)

My local build run fine in mock but al kojis test build in rawhide are failing
see:
Can't locate Time/HiRes.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Time::HiRes
module) (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5
/usr/share/perl5 .) at ./wvtestrun line 10.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at ./wvtestrun line 10.
Makefile:130: recipe for target 'test' failed

Looks like a missing BuildRequires

= MUST items =
C/C++:
[PASS]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[PASS]: Package contains no static executables.
[PASS]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[PASS]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[PASS]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[PASS]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[PASS]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[PASS]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[PASS]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[PASS]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[PASS]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[NA]:   Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[PASS]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[PASS]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[PASS]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[PASS]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[PASS]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[NA]:   If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[PASS]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[PASS]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[PASS]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[PASS]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[PASS]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[PASS]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[PASS]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[PASS]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[PASS]: Package installs properly.
[PASS]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[PASS]: 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.
[PASS]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[PASS]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[PASS]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[PASS]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[PASS]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[PASS]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[PASS]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[PASS]: Dist tag is present.
[PASS]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[PASS]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[PASS]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[PASS]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[PASS]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[PASS]: Package is not relocatable.
[PASS]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[PASS]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[PASS]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[PASS]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[NA]:   Python eggs must not download any 

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of bup-0.27-0.1.fc21.src.rpm for rawhide failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11351834

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1222334] Review Request: bup - Efficient backup system based on git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review