[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-18 14:52:44



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
seafile-5.1.2-3.fc24, seafile-client-5.1.1-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora
24 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
seafile-5.1.2-3.fc24, seafile-client-5.1.1-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora
24 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-2016-6aa664154f

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
seafile-5.1.2-3.fc24 seafile-client-5.1.1-3.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6aa664154f

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
seafile-5.1.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-6aa664154f

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
seafile-5.1.2-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6aa664154f

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/seafile

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review-  |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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review-



--- Comment #18 from Julien Enselme  ---
Looks good. Approved.

One review to go and we can have seafile-client in fedora :-)

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #17 from Nikos Roussos  ---
I fixed the license.

SPEC: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/seafile.spec
SRPM: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/srpms/seafile-5.1.2-3.fc24.src.rpm

For the unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning I opened an upstream bug
https://github.com/haiwen/seafile/issues/1675

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #16 from Julien Enselme  ---
- Seafile is license under GPLv2 not v3 (this is blocking)
- Did you manage to get more information on unused-direct-shlib-dependency?


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 407 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jenselme/Downloads/1160671-seafile/licensecheck.txt

Seafile is license under GPLv2 not v3.

[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[X]: 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).
[X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = 

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #15 from Nikos Roussos  ---
Thanks. I fixed the error with the shared libraries. The
"unused-direct-shlib-dependency" warning, judging from what rpmlint -I says,
seems to be an upstream linking problem, so I'll open a bug upstream.

SPEC: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/seafile.spec
SRPM: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/srpms/seafile-5.1.2-2.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #14 from Julien Enselme  ---
> and this weird error:
> seafile-devel.x86_64: E: non-devel-file-in-devel-package 
> /usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0.0.0

This comes from the fact that
/usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0
/usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0.0.0

are in seafile-devel but they should be in seafile. Only the unversioned so
files go into the devel package.

> seafile.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

I think this comes from /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libseafile.pc but it is in the
devel package. I see no other file that may be causing this. Unless it comes
from the python files that are not binary.

> I'm also getting two warnings from fedora-review, that I'm not getting when 
> building the package on my own
> seafile-devel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
> /usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgio-2.0.so.0
> seafile-devel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
> /usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libjansson.so.4

I have the same with fedora-review but I cannot reproduce if I launch rpmlint
manually. Maybe ask the devel list about this.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #13 from Nikos Roussos  ---
I'm not entirely sure to be honest about the warning. I can't find much
relevant documentation around.

seafile.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

and this weird error:
seafile-devel.x86_64: E: non-devel-file-in-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0.0.0


I'm also getting two warnings from fedora-review, that I'm not getting when
building the package on my own
seafile-devel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgio-2.0.so.0
seafile-devel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libseafile.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libjansson.so.4

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #12 from Julien Enselme  ---
> I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things regarding the shared 
> libraries.

Are those things blocking for the review or can I continue now?

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #11 from Nikos Roussos  ---
New spec update to latest upstream
SPEC: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/seafile.spec
SRPM: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/srpms/seafile-5.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm

Most issues are resolved. I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things
regarding the shared libraries.

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #10 from Julien Enselme  ---
> these are already installed both on buildroot and on runtime since they are 
> pulled as dependencies of other dependencies (ccnet and libsearpc).

I think you should put them anyway: one of the dependency may change its
dependencies and one of these packages may then not be pulled. Furthermore, I
think it is better to make dependencies explicit in a package.

> Installing mysql-devel will bring mysql on runtime, which seems a bit 
> overkill for the purposes of running the desktop client.

Indeed, I think you can skip that one without any problem.

> This causes the build to fail, since some upstream tests fail. I'll open a 
> bug ipstream, but maybe we shouldn't block the review for this.

The %check section is a should item, it won't block the review. Opening a bug
upstream sounds like a good idea.

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #9 from Nikos Roussos  ---
Trying to address the issues pointed out in the review. Some
comments/questions.

> Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> According to http://manual.seafile.com/build_seafile/server.html, the 
> following libraries are required to build seafile:
> - libevent-devel
> - libarchive-devel
> - libmysqlclient-dev (not able to find in fedora though)
> - jansson-devel

With the exception of mysqlclient, these are already installed both on
buildroot and on runtime since they are pulled as dependencies of other
dependencies (ccnet and libsearpc). Installing mysql-devel will bring mysql on
runtime, which seems a bit overkill for the purposes of running the desktop
client.

> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

This causes the build to fail, since some upstream tests fail. I'll open a bug
ipstream, but maybe we shouldn't block the review for this.

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #8 from Julien Enselme  ---
Any plan on continuing the 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #6 from Nikos Roussos  ---
Update to 5.0.5

SPEC: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/seafile.spec
SRPM: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/srpms/seafile-5.0.5-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
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 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Both versioned and unversioned files are present in standard and -devel
package.

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License is GPLv2, not GPLv3.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
- %license in devel is missing

[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Your are missing the  %{optflags} macro. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags. I think you
should add %{?_smp_mflags} too.

[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
According to http://manual.seafile.com/build_seafile/server.html, the following
libraries are required to build seafile:
- libevent-devel
- libarchive-devel
- libmysqlclient-dev (not able to find in fedora though)
- jansson-devel

[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[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.
[X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
- I belive that BR: python2-devel is required
- In %files, %{python_sitearch}/%{name} -> %{python2_sitearch}/%{name} (note
the 2)

[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
See my comment above.

[-]: 

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671
Bug 1160671 depends on bug 1129429, which changed state.

Bug 1129429 Summary: Review Request: ccnet - A framework for writing networked 
applications in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129429

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu



--- Comment #5 from Julien Enselme  ---
Can you please update the package so I can start the 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

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #4 from Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org ---
Update to 4.1.4

SPEC: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/seafile.spec
SRPM: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/srpms/seafile-4.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm

Also address some things from above comment:

2. Use release tag instead of commit
3. Packaging guidelines discourage use of %makeinstall
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
4. Enabled hardened build
5. Use %license for the LICENSE text
6. .desktop is part of the seafile-client package
7. Fixed man page naming

-- 
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 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Vladimir Stackov amigo.el...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||amigo.el...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Stackov amigo.el...@gmail.com ---
Greetings,

a few comments on this review request:

1. Your packages (seafile and ccnet) both introduces build time requirements
(cross-package BuildRequires) so you should setup boostraping properly:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bootstrapping

2. As you are packaging snapshot, you should use another name for the package:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Github

3. You should consider using %makeinstall macros instead of make install
DESTDIR=%{buildroot}:
# rpm -E %makeinstall

4. You should consider enabling hardened builds:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE

5. You should use %license for license information instead of %doc.

6. Your package should contain correct .desktop file:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files

7. Use %{name}.1.* instead of %{name}.1.gz, since the compression method might
change at some point.

Please note that this is informal 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

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #2 from Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org ---
Thanks. I'll check all these in detail. Just a quick reply on comment 2. This
is not a snapshot, but guidelines suggest I reference the source by commit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github

-- 
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 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Stackov amigo.el...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Nikos Roussos from comment #2)
 Thanks. I'll check all these in detail. Just a quick reply on comment 2.
 This is not a snapshot, but guidelines suggest I reference the source by
 commit
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github

Then you should define source properly.
Something like https://github.com/haiwen/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz
It wasn't obvious that c81b8c8ef32dae6ae9b8cc9d3a2bb8cbada08c13 was tagged
3.1.8.

-- 
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 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1129429




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129429
[Bug 1129429] Review Request: ccnet - A framework for writing networked
applications in C
-- 
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 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1160672




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160672
[Bug 1160672] Review Request: seafile-client - Seafile cloud storage
desktop client
-- 
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