https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322168 --- Comment #3 from Honggang LI <honli@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #2) > > %global _hardened_build 1 > > This is actually the default setting since Fedora 23: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages > I see the Packaging Guidelines don't mention that fact, but anyway, > it's certainly OK to keep it in the spec file as well. > Remove it. > > # libibacmp.so is a plugin for the ibacm daemon, not a public library. > > # Do not advertise it in RPM metadata: > > %global _privatelibs libibacmp[.]so.* > > %global __provides_exclude ^(%{_privatelibs})$ > > %global __requires_exclude ^(%{_privatelibs})$ > > I see this matches the style described in "Filtering provides and requires > after scanning" in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering. > I would just suggest moving these lines down, right before the %description, > to satisfy the recommendation in "Location of macro invocation" on the page. > Moved to just before '%description'. > > Name: ibacm > > Version: 1.2.0 > > Release: 1%{?dist} > > Summary: InfiniBand Communication Manager Assistant > > Group: System Environment/Daemons > > The Group: tag is unnecessary. Removed it. > > License: GPLv2 or BSD > > Url: http://www.openfabrics.org/ > > Source: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/rdmacm/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > Source1: ibacm.service > > It would be nice to have a systemd unit file in upstream. > /me looks inside ibacm.service and src/acm.c ... I can see the daemonization > is implemented carelessly. In such a case Type=forking does not buy us > anything. We may as well use Type=simple and ExecStart=/usr/bin/ibacm -P > WantedBy=network.target is unusual and likely wrong. > I'll look into improving this later myself (will file a BZ to myself once we > have the component created). > This is not a problem for the review. > > > Patch0001: 0001-Coverity-and-compile-warning-fixes.patch > > It would be nice to get rid of the patch by getting the changes to upstream. > I may as well do this when I'm sending the systemd-related changes. > Not a problem for the review. > > > BuildRequires: libibverbs-devel >= 1.2.0 > > BuildRequires: libibumad-devel >= 1.3.10.2 > > BuildRequires: systemd > > Should also add "BuildRequires: gcc" according to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires > Added 'BuildRequires: gcc'. > > Requires(post): systemd > > Requires(preun): systemd > > Requires(postun): systemd > > These 3 lines can be expressed by: > %{?systemd_requires} > as suggested in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Systemd > Replaced it as required. > > [...] > > %build > > # ./autogen.sh > > %configure CFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -fno-strict-aliasing" LIBS=-lpthread > Removed 'LIBS=-lpthread', and confirmed ibacm had been linked against pthread as expected. ldd usr/bin/ib_acme linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc2f907000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007f1f6017a000) libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f1f5ff76000) libibumad.so.3 => not found libibverbs.so.1 => not found libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f1f5fba7000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x000055c674a7b000) ldd usr/sbin/ibacm linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc5d7f8000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007f17dc092000) libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f17dbe8e000) libibumad.so.3 => not found libibverbs.so.1 => not found libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f17dbabf000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000556510936000) > Setting CFLAGS from CXXFLAGS is surely suspicious. > A more customary way to add to CFLAGS is: > > CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fno-strict-aliasing" > %configure > Replaced it. > I don't know why the setting of LIBS is needed. Maybe it really isn't? It is unnecessary. Removed it. -- 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