Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setools - SELinux policy analysis tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=280541 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-14 13:16 EST ------- For 3.3.1-3: - Please check your rpms by rpmlint (in rpmlint package) before submitting. - And also consider to reduce total spec file. For example * Use glob (*) in %files entry when possible. This surely makes spec files more readable and reduces many mistakes. * Also, you can use %exclude macro Then: * Redundant Requires - Please consider if explicit version requirements are really required. Currently we only support FC6+, and --------------------------------------------------- Package requirement by FC6 version ths package autoconf 2.59 2.59-12 gtk2 2.8 2.10.13-1.fc6 bwidegt 1.8 1.8.0-1.fc6 python 2.3 2.4.4-1.fc6 libsepol 1.12.27 1.15.3-1.fc6 libselinux 1.30 1.33.4-2.fc6 sqlite 3.2.0 3.3.6-2 swig 1.3.28 1.3.31-0.fc6 tcl 8.4.9 8.4.13-3.fc6 ---------------------------------------------------- * Other requires issue ---------------------------------------------------- Requires: setools-libs >= %{version}-%{release} ---------------------------------------------------- - Why is this >= ? * unstripped ELF binaries - Still lots of ELF binaries are not stripped. For example ----------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ rpmlint setools-gui setools-gui.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/setools/apol_tcl/libapol_tcl.so.4.1.1 ----------------------------------------------------- And these binaries does not have executable permission, which must be fixed. As I said in my comment 4, - The permission of these binaries have to be fixed *manually* before %install stage finishes, like: ----------------------------------------------------- chmod 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_libdir/%name/apol_tcl/libapol_tcl.so.*.*.* ----------------------------------------------------- * Unowned directories - Please check directory ownership again. For example, %_libdir/setools is not owned by any package. NOTE: - Please consider to write just directory name like: ------------------------------------------------------ %files foo/ ------------------------------------------------------- when possible. This means - the directory foo/ itself - and all files/directories/etc under foo/ so this automatically checks directory ownership issue and this format surely reduces mistakes for directory ownership issue. * python directories macro ------------------------------------------------------- %define pkgpyexecdir %{_libdir}/python?.?/site-packages/setools %define pkgpythondir %{_exec_prefix}/lib*/python?.?/site-packages/setools ------------------------------------------------------- - Use %python_sitelib or %python_sitearch. Check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python * files in setools metapackage - These files cannot be installed when setools package is explicitly excluded and in this case COPYING file and so on is not installed. All files in setools metapackage should be moved to other subpackages (mostly in -libs subpackage). * desktop file check - Rebuild fails on desktop-file-install (as said in previous comment). * libdir in pkgconfig .pc file - For example, even on x86_64, %_libdir/pkgconfig/libapol.pc says: --------------------------------------------------------- prefix=/usr exec_prefix=${prefix} libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib ---------------------------------------------------------- On 64bits, libdir must be /usr/lib64, not /usr/lib. * Macros - Still /usr/share is used on -gui %files entry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review