https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642 Vojtech Trefny <vtrefny@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Vojtech Trefny <vtrefny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in sid See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets spec contains all three mentioned scripts: ``` %post %systemd_post sid.socket sid.service %preun %systemd_preun sid.service sid.socket %postun %systemd_postun sid.sevice sid.socket ``` so I assume this is a fedora-review bug, most likely https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725584 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x: Package contains no static executables. [x: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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). [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 13 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Rpmlint ------- Checking: sid-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-debugsource-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-base-libs-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-base-libs-devel-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-log-libs-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-log-libs-devel-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-iface-libs-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-iface-libs-devel-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-resource-libs-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-resource-libs-devel-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-tools-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-mod-dummies-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-mod-block-blkid-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-mod-block-dm-mpath-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-0.0.4-1.fc33.src.rpm sid-base-libs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sid-log-libs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sid-iface-libs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sid-resource-libs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These packages install only *.so symlinks to /usr/lib64, no binary data. sid-mod-dummies.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/sid/modules/ucmd/block/dummy_block.so sid-mod-dummies.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/sid/modules/ucmd/type/dummy_type.so I've checked these and there are not glibc symbols. sid-mod-block-dm-mpath.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multipath -> multiparty sid-mod-block-dm-mpath.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipath -> multiparty Multipath is correct :-) 16 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sid-mod-dummies-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-mod-block-blkid-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-iface-libs-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-log-libs-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-tools-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-resource-libs-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-mod-block-dm-mpath-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm sid-base-libs-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --------------------------------------------------------- The package looks good to me. Warnings from fedora-review and rpmlint looks like false positives to me. -- 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
