Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513320 --- Comment #20 from Stewart Adam <s.adam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-23 15:27:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) > I thought I saw on IRC that someone was going to review this last week, but > nothing seems to have happened so I'll make some further comments. > > The makefile hides important data; adding 'V=1' to the make call makes it more > useful. Done. > > I'll trust the previous licensing work and assume that license tag and such are > correct. I've double checked this and to the best of my knowledge (IANAL) it is OK. The only possible problem I see is that the GPL license has exceptions for MS VSS and OpenSSL, so strictly speaking it isn't standard GPL nor "GPLv2+ with exceptions" as defined in the Fedora licensing page... In the LICENSE-DUAL.TXT it's referred to as "Box Backup GPL". > Your scriptlets don't seem to correspond to the recommended ones from > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_spec_file_scriptlets Sorry about that! I must have misread the %postun for %preun and appended it to the other scriptlets... Fixed it. > boxbackup-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug > /boxbackup-0.11rc8/lib/win32/getopt.h > It's odd that the header is executable, and doubly odd that it's in the package > at all. Why is the stuff in lib/win32 being built? It looks as if that file acts as a sort of abstraction layer. If on Unix, it maps the EMU_{F,L,}STAT structs to the system ones and stops because of this line: #if ! defined EMU_INCLUDE && defined WIN32 The rest of Box Backup references EMU_* and so it will automatically get the right one depending on the platform. I believe something similar happens in getopt_long.cpp because neither _MSC_VER or __MINGW32__ should be defined. > Why are the files in /etc/boxbackup/ completely empty? /etc/boxbackup/bbstored and /etc/boxbackup/bbbackupd are the locations that the services store the account data and user/server certificates so that will vary from machine to machine and it needs to be initialized correctly by the user (I provide instructions on how to do so in the README.fedora files for each package) I suppose it would be possible to provide a sample configuration and let the user create the certificates, but then we'd be dictating where backups are stored on the server machine and disabling the userland raid feature. I think it is much easier to let Box Backup handle all of it - the tools included easily and quickly create the necessary configuration and certificates once the user provides information about the server (or client) machine. SPEC: http://firewing.fedorapeople.org/pub/SPECS/boxbackup.spec SRPM: http://firewing.fedorapeople.org/pub/SRPMS/boxbackup-0.11-0.3.rc8.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review