https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476458 --- Comment #16 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Can you please provide updated SRC.RPM? The latest I was able to find https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/orpiske/paho-testing/fedora-26-x86_64/00589833-paho-c/ contains different tar.gz file from the one located on the Source0 URL. paho-c.src: W: file-size-mismatch v1.2.0.tar.gz = 441242, https://github.com/eclipse/paho.mqtt.c/archive/v1.2.0.tar.gz = 431819 The description should be wrapped to 80 characters (you have 81). paho-c.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaho-mqtt3a.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 paho-c.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaho-mqtt3as.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 paho-c.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaho-mqtt3c.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 paho-c.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaho-mqtt3cs.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 shared-lib-calls-exit: This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. You cannot do anything about it as just maintainer. But you should at least file issue for upstream. paho-c.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libpaho-mqtt3as.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list paho-c.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libpaho-mqtt3cs.so.1.2.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list Again. File issue to upstream: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MQTTAsync_publish paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MQTTAsync_subscribe paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MQTTClient_publish paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MQTTClient_publish_async paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MQTTClient_subscribe paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MQTTVersion paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary paho_c_pub paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary paho_c_sub paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary paho_cs_pub paho-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary paho_cs_sub This is not blocker for the review, but you should write man pages for those binaries. paho-c-devel-doc.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc You should not own that directory. Instead of %{_datadir}/* use %{_defaultdocdir}/* Are you sure that main package should not contain any /usr/bin/SOMETHING? It now contains only library. Then such package should be named libpaho-c. I would highly recommend renaming `%package devel-doc` to just `%package doc`. The doc subpackage for such packages is nearly always meant for developers. -- 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
