https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074147 --- Comment #9 from Kenjiro Nakayama <knakayam@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #8) Hi, thank you for your great review. I updated. But some pending things, please check #3 and #7 Updated Spec URL: http://diy-kenjiro.rhcloud.com/rpms/apt-cacher-ng.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://diy-kenjiro.rhcloud.com/rpms/apt-cacher-ng-0.7.25-3.fc20.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6632491 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 1. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Updated like following. i) -> Added BR: openssl-devel ii) -> Added BR: boost-devel. iii) -> mkdir build && cd build && %cmake .. make %{?_smp_mflags} > 2. Quoted from INSTALL again: > > " - for apt clients, there is a config snipped in contrib/10-apt-cacher-ng.conf > which might be installed into /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/." > > Have you tested it if it works as expected on Fedora? Yes, I have already been using apt-cacher-ng. This quote is for client configuration. As all fedora users use apt-cacher-ng as only cache server, we don't need client configuration on Fedora. > 3. This package contains a folder named systemd/, it includes sysconfig and systemd unit, you should use the one shipped in the tarball instead of using a patch. And you've forgotten the sysconfig file. I updated to include *.service file instead of using a patch. > it includes sysconfig and systemd unit Hmm... do you mean the sysconfig is /etc/systemd/system/*.service ? If so, I think it is not necessary to include package, it should be copied by user. If it means *.target, *.target is not necessary for apt-cacher-ng. Sorry if I misunderstand, and I could not find appropriate packaging guideline. I checked man 5 systemd.unit. > 4. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > apt-cacher-ng-0.7.25/include/sha1.h > apt-cacher-ng-0.7.25/source/sha1.cc > > copylib I think, but not granted exception in: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries > > like md5: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#cite_note-0 > > So I think you need to file an fpc ticket. OK, I will file an fpc ticket soon. > 5. zlib/libpng > > Maybe this is a C++ port of Peter Deutsch's version, you need to add > > Provides: bundled(md5-deutsch-c++) Updated. > 6. apt-cacher-ng.i686: E: description-line-too-long C A caching proxy. Specialized for package files from Linux distributors, primarily for Debian (and Debian based) distributions. Updated to less than 79 chars. > 7. apt-cacher-ng.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/cron.daily/apt-cacher-ng 0750L > apt-cacher-ng.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/apt-cacher-ng > > chmod -x, I think a configuration file doesn't need that. Pending. I thought a file which is placed in /etc/cron.daily/ need to be executable. Is chmod -x really necessary? > 8. apt-cacher-ng.i686: W: dangling-relative-symlink /etc/apt-cacher-ng/backends_ubuntu.default ../../var/lib/apt-cacher-ng/backends_ubuntu.default > apt-cacher-ng.i686: W: dangling-relative-symlink /etc/apt-cacher-ng/backends_debian.default ../../var/lib/apt-cacher-ng/backends_debian.default > > You can ignore this, but please ensure they are correct ;) OK, I see. > 9. apt-cacher-ng.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/apt-cacher-ng/expire-caller.pl 0644L /usr/bin/perl > > Not 755? Updated, yes it should be 0755. (updated)-> install -pm 0755 build/in.acng expire-caller.pl urlencode-fixer.pl distkill.pl $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir}/apt-cacher-ng/ > 10. > - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros Updated, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT :D -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review