https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap | |roject.org) | --- Comment #24 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #19) > <snip> > > I have multiple masters here and trying keep them all happy. Ugh, this will not be easy. While they all use RPM, the guidelines for packaging can be quite different. You can either keep different spec files for them or use conditionals if you'd like to keep a single spec. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/#_conditionals (I do not know about other distributions, sorry). (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #22) > So here is a cleaner build on COPR using the latest master with a temporary > tag v1.0.2y. > > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-30- > ppc64le/00978483-pveclib/ > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora- > rawhide-ppc64le/00978483-pveclib/ > > Turns out the build process is really picked about all the version #s > matching. And having pveclib.spec in the source tree is a mistake. Yes, while the versions of rpms and upstream must match, the rpms can carry tweaks and changes and the release tag incremented each time, accordingly. > Now the rpmlint is clean expect the spelling of altivec.h: > > $ rpmlint ./rpmbuild/ > pveclib.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective > pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective > 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ^ That's fine. > > one weird thing is that the RPMS built by COPR have bad signatures > > Error checking signature of > /home/sjmunroe/rpmtest/pveclib-debuginfo-1.0.2y-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm: > /home/sjmunroe/rpmtest/pveclib-debuginfo-1.0.2y-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm: digests > SIGNATURES NOT OK > > rpm -ql complains: Header V3 RSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 81dc7181: NOKEY > > But the ones I build on Fedora 30 P8 does NOT have these errors. > > I have no idea what this is oe how to deal with this. I wouldn't worry about it. When built using koji, these should not occur. The spec looks pretty good now. One last nitpick, but you can change that before you import into SCM: Please explicitly version the shared objects %{_libdir}/libpvec.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpvec.so.0.0.0 This ensures that any soname bumps will not slip through. XXX APPROVED XXXX I've now sponsored you to the packager group! Welcome!! Please import the package and build it following the process here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
