[Bug 1258874] Review Request: libmaxminddb - C library for the MaxMind DB file format

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258874



--- Comment #6 from Jens Lody <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Snippet of fedora-review:
<snip>
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libmaxminddb-1.1.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          libmaxminddb-devel-1.1.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          libmaxminddb-utils-1.1.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
          libmaxminddb-1.1.1-2.el7.centos.src.rpm
libmaxminddb.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.1-1
['1.1.1-2.el7.centos', '1.1.1-2.centos']
libmaxminddb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libmaxminddb-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libmaxminddb.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/maxmind/libmaxminddb/releases/download/1.1.1/libmaxminddb-1.1.1.tar.gz
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libmaxminddb-debuginfo-1.1.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
libmaxminddb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libmaxminddb.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.1-1
['1.1.1-2.el7.centos', '1.1.1-2.centos']
libmaxminddb.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libmaxminddb.so.0.0.7 /lib64/libm.so.6
libmaxminddb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
</snip>

The unused-direct-shlib-dependency-warning can be removed, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/#unused-direct-shlib-dependency

After removing this, I got a private-shared-object-provides-warning for the
main-rpm (for some obscure reason, I did not get it before), but it is most
likely an issue with fedora-review/rpmlint see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1253917

Nothing is shown with rpmlint directly or when running rpm-qp on the
package(s).


The only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is also a positive, I think, it's common to have
just a link to the versioned so-files in /usr/lib[64] .

The incoherent-version-in-changelog should be fixed.

Not sure about the no-documentation warning.

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]