https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386938 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Andrejak <thomas.andrejak@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12) > # Force default attrs because libprelude force others > %defattr(- , root, root, 755) > → I think you don't need this anymore. => Just try it, I still need this > > %{python3_sitearch}/_prelude.*so > %{python3_sitearch}/prelude.py > → Not a packaging issue, but still something to reconsider upstream. I think > putting a private module at the top level is rather ugly. Imaging the mess > if everybody did that ;). Why not structure this as > %{python3_sitearch}/prelude/__init__.py > %{python3_sitearch}/prelude/_prelude.*so > ? (Please note that I'm just complaining here, this review is not contingent > on this in any way.) Good point, I will put this upstream > > BR: perl-generators is needed according to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Build_Dependencies, > and also R: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT_Requires. Done > > - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib) > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle Done > > - Note: License file LICENSE.README is not marked as %license > Yeah, it seems reasonable to include that in %license too. > Same goes for HACKING.README. Done > > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 5703680 bytes in 53 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > I'm not sure how exactly fedora-review arrives at this number, but it seems > that there's indeed a few MBs of documentation. You might want to split out > libprelude-doc subpackage with /usr/share/doc/libprelude-devel/libprelude. > (Also not that there's an extra level of directories nesting here that looks > accidental.) Done > > rpmlint also says: > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-to-errno.h > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-sources.h > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strsource.c > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/code-from-errno.h > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/err-codes.h > libprelude-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/libprelude-3.1.0/src/libprelude-error/strerror.c > It's not a big issue, but probably to fix upstream at some point. I can't change this, this is not part of libprelude > > libprelude.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 > /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 gnutls_priority_init > prelude-tools.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 > /usr/bin/prelude-admin gnutls_priority_set_direct > > This one is a bigger problem. It's been a while since I looked at the > details, but basically you need to call gnutls_set_default_priority or > gnutls_priority_set_direct("@SYSTEM") > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies]. If this policy > does not apply to this package for some reason, please explain in a comment > in the spec file. Looking at ./prelude-admin/server.c, it should be easy > enough to patch. Done. I explain in the spec why it is OK for libprelude.so. For prelude-admin, I made a patch to use what is required in the Wiki but I still have the warning > > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libprelude.so.23.3.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0 > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgnutls.so.30 > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgcrypt.so.20 > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0 > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libltdl.so.7 > libprelude.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libpreludecpp.so.8.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > > Overlinking? Not a big issue, because those libraries are going to be > installed anyway, but removing it might reduce memory usage and startup time > but some minuscule amount. Done > > And one more suggestion for upstream reconsideration: > custom autoconf macros are horrible. The problem is that any project that > wants to use them, must either bundle them (which is annoying if you have > more than two or three dependencies), or wrap the calls to those macros in > ugly and brittle m4 macros for the case when the dependency is not > installed. Please consider providing a pkgconfig file, which is easier to > write, easier to use, and as a bonus, works with other build systems like > meson. (Please note that I'm just complaining here, this review is not > contingent on this in any way.) Interesting, I will share this with upstream -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx