https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702017 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - %makeinstall is forbidden, use %make_install - Have you filed a bug for upstream to introduce SONAME versioning? This kind of renaming is not sufficent to have a proper soversion. You will encounter issues: DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides libbgpdump.so()(64bit) needed by libbgpdump-devel-1.6.0-1.fc31.x86_64 Because: rpm -q --provides -p libbgpdump-1.6.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libbgpdump = 1.6.0-1.fc31 libbgpdump(x86-64) = 1.6.0-1.fc31 libbgpdump.so.1.6.0()(64bit) 1.6.0 is now part of the library name instead of being the soname. You can set the soname manually with patchelf: BuildRequires: patchelf […] patchelf --set-soname libbgpdump.so.1.6.0 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libbgpdump.so.1.6.0 Though I would recommend instead to patch the Makefile to add -Wl,-soname,${SONAME}, with SONAME=libbgpdump.so.@PACKAGE_VERSION@ to the compiler as patchelf is unreliable. In any case contact upstream first and if they don't respond, patch the Makefile. - Patch the Makefile to use $(INSTALL) instead of install to keep timestamps. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU General Public License". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libbgpdump/review- libbgpdump/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. Note: %makeinstall used in %install section [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bgpdump [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libbgpdump-1.6.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libbgpdump-devel-1.6.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm bgpdump-1.6.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libbgpdump-debuginfo-1.6.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libbgpdump-debugsource-1.6.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libbgpdump-1.6.0-1.fc31.src.rpm libbgpdump.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libbgpdump.so.1.6.0 libbgpdump.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbgpdump.so.1.6.0 exit libbgpdump.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/libbgpdump.so.1.6.0 libbgpdump.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/libbgpdump.so.1.6.0 libbgpdump-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bgpdump -> dumpling libbgpdump-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bgpdump -> dumpling libbgpdump-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation bgpdump.x86_64: W: no-documentation bgpdump.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bgpdump 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
