https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 --- Comment #9 from Andrey Maslennikov <andreyma@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/5be459ccf60ee116cc56296f72ecd38560961dee/ucx.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/5be459ccf60ee116cc56296f72ecd38560961dee/ucx-1.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21147884 Details: > > %files > > %{_libdir}/lib*.so* > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages Unversioned .so moved to -devel. > > %{_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. > > The issue here is that the directories /usr/share/ucx and /usr/share/ucs/perftest are not included in your packages. That's why I've linked the directory ownership guidelines. Fixed. > > -devel package now has 'Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}'. > > It is as if you deliberately misread > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries > > because even if a "compelling reason" where given as why to include the static libs, they don't belong into the -devel package, if there are also shared libs. Static libs moved to separate -static package. -devel depends on it. > > It reports "[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros" complaining > > on AC_PROG_LIBTOOL. Is it critical and has to fixed? > > That's not part of the review guidelines or packaging guidelines. The tool is trying to be helpful. In case it became necessary to regenerate the configure script during the build process, such as for a fix, obsolete macros would be problematic. It's something to fix upstream. Make sure you can autoreconf the source tarball on a recent installation of Fedora. OK, thanks. autoreconf works on f25. > > 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? > > If check-rpaths during an official build complained about it, proceed as described at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath Couldn't reproduce it with fedora-review ran locally on spec/srpm. Added --disable-rpath to %configure anyway. > > 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. > > That is completely *unexpected*. The SourceURL *must* link exactly the source archive that is included in the src.rpm. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines > > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Just want to have issues in spec fixed before creating actual release. Can we ignore this one for a while? Once others are resolved I'll fix it ASAP (will required creating a release). -- 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
