https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897738 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in virtualpg See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ^^^ That is a fedora-review complaint. It's pointing out that the main package contains %{_libdir}/mod_virtualpg.so. I see the comment in %files stating that it must be this way. I'm curious why, but if it's a long story you can leave me in the dark. - The %description starts with a pronoun referring to something unspecified, presumably this package: "Its intended scope is ...". The English in the rest is a bit awkward. I suggest rewording it like this: Virtualpg supports direct SQL access to PostgreSQL and PostGIS tables, enabling simple and straightforward data exchanges between these two popular open source Spatial DBMSs. - libtool is (in)famous for reordering options, in particular for pushing -Wl,--as-needed *after* the libraries on the link line, rendering it useless. Sure enough: $ ldd -u /usr/lib64/mod_virtualpg.so.0.1.1 Unused direct dependencies: /lib64/libsqlite3.so.0 I usually put this in spec files that use libtool, both to defeat rpaths and to deal with -Wl,--as-needed: # Get rid of undesirable hardcoded rpaths; workaround libtool reordering # -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries. sed -e 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' \ -e 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' \ -e 's|CC="\(.*g..\)"|CC="\1 -Wl,--as-needed"|' \ -i libtool This is a suggestion, not a demand. - ChangeLog is 0 bytes, so there isn't much point in including it in %doc. ===== 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]: 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]: 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). [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. ldconfig should not be invoked in scriptlets anymore [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. Upstream did not provide any tests. [x]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: virtualpg-2.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm virtualpg-devel-2.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm virtualpg-debuginfo-2.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm virtualpg-debugsource-2.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm virtualpg-2.0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm virtualpg.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/virtualpg/ChangeLog virtualpg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: virtualpg-debuginfo-2.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- virtualpg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation virtualpg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mod_virtualpg.so.0.1.1 /lib64/libsqlite3.so.0 virtualpg.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/virtualpg/ChangeLog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- virtualpg: /usr/lib64/mod_virtualpg.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.gaia-gis.it/gaia-sins/virtualpg-2.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : be2aebeb8c9ff274382085f51d422e823858bca4f6bc2fa909816464c6a1e08b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be2aebeb8c9ff274382085f51d422e823858bca4f6bc2fa909816464c6a1e08b Requires -------- virtualpg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libpq.so.5()(64bit) libpq.so.5(RHPG_9.6)(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) virtualpg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libvirtualpg.so.0()(64bit) virtualpg(x86-64) virtualpg-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): virtualpg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- virtualpg: libvirtualpg.so.0()(64bit) virtualpg virtualpg(x86-64) virtualpg-devel: pkgconfig(virtualpg) virtualpg-devel virtualpg-devel(x86-64) virtualpg-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) virtualpg-debuginfo virtualpg-debuginfo(x86-64) virtualpg-debugsource: virtualpg-debugsource virtualpg-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1897738 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Ocaml, R, Ruby, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
