[Bug 513320] Review Request: boxbackup - A fast, secure and automatic online backup system

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 14 19:47:55 UTC 2010


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

Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #21 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2010-12-14 14:47:48 EST ---
Hate to do this, but now that I look at the license stuff I'm having trouble
figuring out what's what.  The COPYING.txt file indicates that a bunch of stuff
is under their specific "GPLv2+ with exceptions" license, and that some of the
code is dual licensed "GPL (v something) or BSD", and of course it says "unless
stated otherwise in the file" so you have to check all of the files.

So it looks to me to be a bit more complicated than just "BSD or GPLv2+ with
exceptions".  You will need to figure out which parts of the final packages are
under which license(s) and indicate that, generally with a comment in the spec
near the License: tag but if it gets overly complex you can move it off to a
file included as documentation.

I'm guessing since spot already signed off on these that there's no problem
with compatibility between the different license stuff, since you can always
use the dual-licensed stuff under the BSD license in order to link it with the
GPLv2+ with exceptions stuff.

It seems that nothing owns /etc/boxbackup.


* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  7bd734b5ab37f67aa88029635306e586b9e33bffe4ded5760f9d299b2b03e01b
   boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summaries are OK.
* descriptions are OK.
* dist tag is present.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  boxbackup-0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   config(boxbackup) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup(x86-64) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
  =
   /bin/bash  
   /bin/sh  
   /usr/bin/perl  
   chkconfig  
   config(boxbackup) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   initscripts  
   libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)  
   libdb-4.8.so()(64bit)  
   libedit.so.0()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
   libssl.so.10()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)  
   libz.so.1()(64bit)  
   openssl >= 0.9.7a
   perl(strict)  
   shadow-utils  

  boxbackup-server-0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   config(boxbackup-server) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup-server = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   boxbackup-server(x86-64) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
  =
   /bin/bash  
   /bin/sh  
   /usr/bin/perl  
   config(boxbackup-server) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15
   libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)  
   libdb-4.8.so()(64bit)  
   libedit.so.0()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
   libssl.so.10()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit)  
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)  
   libz.so.1()(64bit)  
   perl(strict)  

* no bundled libraries.
X fails to own /etc/boxbackup.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are OK (service management, user creation).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list