https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 --- Comment #7 from Andrey Maslennikov <andreyma@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/9c7187b1aaa516030c08e3216675b4ff3145906d/ucx.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/9c7187b1aaa516030c08e3216675b4ff3145906d/ucx-1.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21125023 Please see details on what was done regarding your first review (sorry for not posting it with prev comment): > > %global rel 1 > > %global version 1.3.3274 > > Completely pointless definition and redefinition of macros for various reasons: > > 1) You define %rel only to use it once in the spec file. > 2) You also use %release and not only %rel. > 3) The "Release" tag implicitly defines %release, so both macros would be the same. > 4) The "Version" tag implicitly defines %version. You redefine %version. > > Further, the dist tag is missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning Removed extra assignments, new code looks following: Name: ucx Version: 1.2.0 Release: 1%{?dist} > > %global __check_files %{nil} > > Comment/rationale missing! Removed. > > %bcond_with valgrind > > No-op due to nothing related within the spec file. Removed. > > Summary: Unified Communication X > > That's only what the UCX acronym stands for. The %description could explain that and expand on the > summary, while the %summary could tell a bit more:> > > Summary: Communication framework for data centric and high-performance applications Summary/Description for both packages were updated. > > Group: Development/Libraries > > No. The group for system runtime library packages is "System Environment/Libraries" for decades. On the contrary, "Development/Libraries" is for -devel packages, for example. Fixed. > > Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source Fixed, new value is https://github.com/openucx/%{name}/archive/v1.2.0.tar.gz. > > ExclusiveArch: aarch64 ppc64le x86_64 > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support Added comment: "UCX currently supports only the following architectures". > > Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig > > Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig > > Implicit and automatic with /sbin/ldconfig scriptlets for a *very* long time. Removed. > > %description > > %description devel > > Odd that the -devel package contains the more detailed description. The base package also contains more than libraries, lacking an explanation. Updated. Now -devel package contains only additional info. > > %build > > ./contrib/configure-release \ > > That's a configure script for which you really want to use the %configure macro. See "rpm -E %configure" on what it does. Updated to use %configure. > > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ > > echo %{_libdir} > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ucx.conf > > No, %_libdir is in the default search path list for runtime libs. Removed. > > %clean > > rm -rf %{buildroot} > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections Removed. > > %files > > %{_libdir}/lib*.so.* > > %{_bindir}/uc* > > %{_datadir}/ucx/perftest/* > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership Extra files are now removed in %install, fixed issue with file pattern. Is there anything else to fix here? Please also see below. > > %{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ucx.conf > > Superfluous. Removed. > > %files devel > > %{_includedir}/uc* > > %{_libdir}/lib*.a > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries -devel package now has 'Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}'. > > %changelog > > * Mon Jul 3 2017 Andrey Maslennikov <andreyma@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 1.3 > > - Fedora package created > > Not matching %version. Fixed. > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8693/20688693/build.log > > Please look for ways to make build output verbose, so more of the compiler/linker calls and options can be seen in the build.log. You may need to disable .silent rules or execute Make with V=1, or enable other settings in the build framework. Added V=1 to make command. Regarding fedora-review tool. It reports "[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros" complaining on AC_PROG_LIBTOOL. Is it critical and has to fixed? Another error it reports is from rpmlint: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath. Is there any other way to correctly specify the path for .so/executable files? It also reports mismatch in sizes/checksums of the tarball, which is expected: current link is for prev release, we will create a new one (v1.2.1) once pass this review. Other checks look good. -- 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
