https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157646 Jonathan Wright <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(alexandre.detiste | |@gmail.com) --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wright <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > License: BSD and zlib This seems to only be licensed under BSD now. Also it should be SPDX format, ie: BSD-4-Clause [1] > Source2: apt-cacher-ng.service I don't think it makes sense to main this custom source anymore unless we're wanting to customize it somehow, but that would probably be better handled with a patch file or `sed` in the spec. Upstream now builds it by default from packaged templates, ie: --- # systemd unit mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_unitdir} install -D -p redhat-linux-build/systemd/%{name}.service %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service --- > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Personally I would replace all instances of `$RPM_BUILD_ROOT` with `%{buildroot}` > %global _vpath_builddir build This is not needed. Nothing in the spec refers to the build dir, and it'd be best to just use the default one anyway IMO. --- I think it makes sense to still package the useful Perl scripts, ie: # Install adapted from debian/rules mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libexecdir}/apt-cacher-ng/ install -pm 0755 scripts/expire-caller.pl scripts/urlencode-fixer.pl scripts/distkill.pl %{buildroot}%{_libexecdir}/apt-cacher-ng/ > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/avahi/services/apt-cacher-ng.service It's probably best to include the docs, and I think %exclude is a bit cleaner for dealing with the avahi file. The latter is just personal preference so if you want to keep the `rm` for it that's fine. Under %files: %{_docdir}/%{name}/ %exclude %{_sysconfdir}/avahi/services/%{name}.service --- - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages I'm attaching a patch file (soversion.patch) for the solution I came up with for that issue. You'll also need to add something like the following sections to the spec to use it: %package devel Summary: Development files for %{name} %description devel %{summary} %files devel %license COPYING %{_libdir}/libsupacng.so --- > apt-cacher-ng.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/apt-cacher-ng.conf $ rpmlint -e 'post-without-tmpfile-creation' post-without-tmpfile-creation: Please use the %tmpfiles_create macro in %post for each of your tmpfiles.d files if you expect this file or directory to be available after package installation (and before reboot). > apt-cacher-ng.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/cron.daily/apt-cacher-ng 750 > apt-cacher-ng.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/apt-cacher-ng 700 > apt-cacher-ng.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/apt-cacher-ng 700 > apt-cacher-ng.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/apt-cacher-ng 700 > apt-cacher-ng.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/cron.daily/apt-cacher-ng 750 These are all sane so these need to be excluded via a apt-cacher-ng.rpmlintrc file in git. > apt-cacher-ng.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/apt-cacher-ng Packaging guidelines [2] state that marking this as a config file is correct so it should be excluded as well via the aforementioned rpmlintrc. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CronFiles/#_cron_job_files_packaging -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157646 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
