https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036320 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> --- Many thanks in advance for the comments... (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #2) > Starting with "fedora-review -b 1036320", which finds a few issues: > > GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) > ---------------------------------------------- > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/nftables- > 20131202/include/rbtree.h > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/nftables- > 20131202/src/rbtree.c Will note it to upstream. > > A closer look (at the file COPYING) reveals: > > | nftables is distributed under the terms of the GPL version 2. > | Note that *only* version 2 of the GPL applies, not "any later > | version". > > So, that trumps the "or later" clause in the rbtree.* source files and the > spec file ought to be "License: GPLv2". Good eye. Will fix. > > nftables.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.2 > > ['0-0.2.20131202git.fc21', '0-0.2.20131202git'] > > True. Will fix. > > nftables.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/nftables/ipv6-filter > > nftables.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/nftables/ipv6-filter nft > > nftables.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/nftables/ipv6-nat > > nftables.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/nftables/ipv6-nat nft > > nftables.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/nftables/ipv4-mangle > > nftables.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/nftables/ipv4-mangle nft > > nftables.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/nftables/bridge-filter > > nftables.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/nftables/bridge-filter nft > > nftables.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/nftables/ipv4-filter > > nftables.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/nftables/ipv4-filter nft > > nftables.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/nftables/ipv6-mangle > > nftables.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/nftables/ipv6-mangle nft > > nftables.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/nftables/ipv4-nat > > nftables.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /etc/nftables/ipv4-nat nft > > Tough ones by design. Rpmlint tells: > > '''Executables must not be marked as config files because that may > prevent upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to > customize an executable, make it for example read a config file in > /etc/sysconfig.''', > > The interpreter "nft" without path /usr/sbin is fragile. Indeed. Just changing this to /usr/sbin/nft isn't a full solution tho. I'll talk to upstream. Perhaps they could be moved to /usr/share or libexec. > > > nftables.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nft > > build.log contains something that could be related: > > checking for docbook2x-man... n > configure: WARNING: docbookx2-man not found, no manpages will be built > checking for db2pdf... n > configure: WARNING: db2pdf not found, no PDF manpages will be built Sadly, no. I tried a number of things to get that working, but it seems to just be a stub. At least in that version. Will see if I can get it working with the newest version. > > > %install > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > Killing buildroot is only needed for EL5: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Sure wish rawhides rpmdev-newspec didn't add it. ;) > > > > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/nftables > > A growing number of packagers add a trailing slash to such lines in %files > to be explicit that this is not a single file but a directory: > > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/nftables/ sure. > > > build.log > > Build output is non-verbose, so one cannot see/verify preprocessor > definitions and compiler optflags. This is because in Makefile.rules (at the > very bottom) it explicitly calls "$(MAKE) -s" for the subdirs. Yep. Will patch/talk to upstream. Thanks for the feedback, will post a new version soon... -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review