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=517488 --- Comment #1 from Matthew Booth <mbooth@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-07 12:11:27 EDT --- MUST items: *** rpmlint reports errors shown above [1] Package is named according to the package naming guidelines spec file name matches the base package name Package meets the packaging guidelines Package is licensed with a Fedora approved license License field in spec file matches actual license Spec file is written in American English Spec file is legible *** Upstream sources are not available [2] Package successfully builds on i686 and x86_64 *** Package uses ExclusiveArch [3] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires Upstream does not contain localisation ldconfig is called in %post and %postun for vm-dump-metrics Package does not bundle copies of system libraries Package is not relocatable Package owns all directories that it creates No files are listed more than once in %files Permissions on files are set properly Package has a %clean section containing rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Package uses macros consistently Package contains only code Package does not include 'large documentation files' %doc files are not required for correct function Header files are in -devel package Static libraries are not built Package does not include pkgconfig files (but autoconf still uses pkgconfig) Bare .so file is in -devel pacakge -devel subpackage requires parent subpackage Package does not contain .la libtool archives Package does not contain a gui application Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages %install runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT All filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: Source package includes license text *** Description and summary sections do not contain translations (not blocker) Package builds in mock (see koji build in original submission) Package compiles and builds for supported architectures (but see [3]) *** Package caused system to become unstable requiring reboot [4] Scriptlets are sane Subpackage does not need to require base package in this case Package does not contain pkgconfig files Package does not have file dependencies Misc: Did you consider any of the other approaches to removing the use of rpath in the spec file? Notes: [1] If the 2 DTDs are genuinely not configuration files, they should be removed. I note that they're already in %doc, which seems appropriate. [2] It's not clear how the tarball was obtained or can be reproduced exactly from source. I'm not able to verify this. [3] I'm taking ExclusiveArch here to be semantically equivalent to ExcludeArch. I note that xen (which is a dependency), also has an ExclusiveArch. libvirt has a solution to this which involves not building against xen where it is not available. Is this possible in this package? [4] Starting vhostmd on my F-11 host flooded /var/log/messages with: Oct 7 14:51:06 mbooth libvirtd: 14:51:06.616: error : qemudDomainLookupByID:3028 : Domain not found: no domain with matching id 0 Oct 7 14:51:06 mbooth libvirtd: 14:51:06.619: error : qemudDomainLookupByName:3080 : Domain not found: no domain with matching name '0' Oct 7 14:53:51 mbooth vhostmd: Error retrieving metric UsedMem Oct 7 14:53:53 mbooth vhostmd: Failed to collect vm metrics during update and the following 2 AVC messages: Oct 7 14:42:33 mbooth kernel: type=1400 audit(1254922953.004:17101): avc: denied { read write } for pid=32590 comm="virsh" path="/dev/shm/vhostmd/disk0" dev=tmpfs ino=2946820 scontext=unconfined_u:system_r:xm_t:s0 tcontext=unconfined_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 tclass=file Oct 7 14:42:33 mbooth kernel: type=1400 audit(1254922953.012:17102): avc: denied { getsched } for pid=32590 comm="virsh" scontext=unconfined_u:system_r:xm_t:s0 tcontext=unconfined_u:system_r:xm_t:s0 tclass=process The system became sluggish after only a few seconds, and unresponsive requiring a reboot shortly after that. This may be a problem with SELinux policy or the default configuration file. Either way, I'd be uncomfortable shipping the package with this as the default behaviour. Is this still a problem on rawhide? I didn't test there. ----- Rich, Can you respond to Misc and 4 Notes above first? Matt -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review