https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977208 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #9 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Roman Mohr from comment #7) Nice review, Roman. But here are some things / questions I stumbled upon just looking on spec-file... > [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. This is usually intentional on c-compiled language-plugins, since they are loaded with dlopen on inclusion. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Should be FAIL, because spec-file appends flags to system-flags: CFLAGS="%{optflags} -O2 -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -finline-functions -fomit-frame-pointer" Why? What's the use/benefit of that? Any explanation? > [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed %defattr is obsolete and needed for rpm < 4.4, only. Even el5 shippes a more recent version. Please remove. > [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. Why does the spec have ExclusiveArch: x86_64 i686? Is there any special reason for it? Are there really build errors? Can you provide a build.log from any failing arch? If there's a good reason for it, then at least follow the process described in the packaging-guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support > [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must > be documented in the spec. MIT is missing in License-Tag, so it should be FAIL here > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. License.{md,txt} is present somewhere in tarball, but not picked on %doc... > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). You should filter the private so-object from provides, see below. > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > ---> There are a lot of unit tests but they are only applicable if > compiled from the development branch. No blocker. Is there any way to run the checks during build, e.g. initializing a fake git repo in source-tree or some other hack? > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint php-phalcon > php-phalcon.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/php/modules/phalcon.so phalcon.so()(64bit) > php-phalcon.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > Provides > -------- > php-phalcon: > config(php-phalcon) > phalcon.so()(64bit) > php-phalcon > php-phalcon(x86-64) You should filter the private so provides. See instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Filtering_provides_and_requires_after_scanning Why are you using such a construct during %prep? | %ifarch x86_64 | %global builddir "build/64bits" | %endif | | %ifarch i686 | %global builddir "build/32bits" | %endif You can archive this really simpler by just initializing the macro on top of spec-file using: %global builddir build-%{?_arch} Why don't you want to build this for el5/el6? A closer look may reveal even more questions. Cheers, Björn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2Gh3vBI0AJ&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review