https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268910 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- You may want to practise a bit more %files sections and ownership of files and directories. In particular %dir entries and inclusion of directory trees as covered here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf The second line here tells that %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} is a directory, or else there could not be a %name.conf file be stored within it. But then the first line %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} includes the directory *and* anything in it. It other words, it includes the directory regardless of whether it's empty or whether it contains a huge tree of files and subdirs. > %{_libexecdir}/%{name} > %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/setuidgid Same here. Typically, rpmbuild warns about such cases that lead to files being listed twice in a %files section. From your scratch build: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9447/11339447/build.log warning: File listed twice: /etc/h2o/h2o.conf warning: File listed twice: /usr/libexec/h2o/setuidgid There is more than one solution to this problem. One involves %dir attributes to include *only* an entry for a directory but not any files within it. The files then must be listed explicitly in the %files section: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf %dir %{_libexecdir}/%{name} %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/setuidgid An alternative is to include a directory tree directly, but that would conflict with %config and other attributes on specific files. The guidelines give a few more examples. Also in the build.log: > No tests were found!!! That refers to the %check section. > -o h2o -rdynamic libressl-build/lib/libssl.a > libressl-build/lib/libcrypto.a -lz -lpthread -ldl -lrt That seems to be related to "%cmake -DWITH_BUNDLED_SSL=on ." and ignores the openssl-devel BuildRequires, too. I hope it's just a bug in the package and not intentional: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries As I understand it, the recent changes to the No Bundling policies are still being discussed because they are considered controversial. -- 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