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=558061 --- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-01-28 14:28:48 EST --- rpmlint output: levmar.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx levmar-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. These are OK. However, by installing the library and running rpmlint on it I get levmar.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 spotf2_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sqrt levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 spotrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sgeqrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dgemm_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dgeqp3_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 ssytrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sqrtf levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dtrtrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sgeqp3_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dpotf2_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dtrtri_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dgetrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sgesvd_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 ssytrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sgemm_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sgetrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dorgqr_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 spotrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sgetrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dpotrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dsytrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dsytrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dgeqrf_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 pow levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 strtrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dpotrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 strtri_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 sorgqr_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dgesvd_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 log10 levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 dgetrs_ levmar.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liblevmar.so.2.2 log10f 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 34 warnings. so it actually seems that -lm -llapack is missing from the library link command. As the library itself uses LAPACK, I recommend that you change BuildRequires: lapack-devel to BuildRequires: atlas-devel the library from "-llapack" to "-L%{_libdir}/atlas -llapack" and the blas library from "-lblas" to "-L%{_libdir}/atlas -lf77blas -latlas" since ATLAS is a lot faster than reference BLAS and LAPACK. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - Time stamp is lost in %prep phase. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. ~OK - I don't know about "lmdemo", I really would name it to "levmardemo". - Currently there doesn't seem to be any package providing /usr/bin/lmdemo. Still, I'd contact upstream to ask for a rename in the next release. MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review