https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091317 Tom "spot" Callaway <spotrh@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |spotrh@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |spotrh@xxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <spotrh@xxxxxxxxx> --- *blows dust off reviewer hat* Okay, lets see if I still remember how to do this. *** PACKAGE REVIEW *** - Need: BuildRequires: gcc - You should not need to set defattr - You should not need to explicitly set %attr to 755 for the binary and script (doesn't the Makefile install them with 755 perms?) - You need to include a copy of the license: %license COPYING - You have an unversioned library (libeatmydata.so) in the main libeatmydata package. AND - You do not have a -devel package (that said, there don't really appear to be headers of any consequence here..) I think given the unique nature of this library, I would just recommend versioning it and having a -devel subpackage with the .so. You should not need to package up header files in -devel, but having a proper versioned library is helpful in case the way it is used ever changes. =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 5 libeatmydata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libeatmydata.so-130-2.fc36.x86_64.debug libeatmydata.src: E: unknown-key a422e098 libeatmydata-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libeatmydata.so-130-2.fc36.x86_64.debug libeatmydata.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libeatmydata.so libeatmydata.so eatmydata.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libeatmydata libeatmydata-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/10/3dd63c971bb4c9f1600e590879ab96caf8edbd ../../../.build-id/10/3dd63c971bb4c9f1600e590879ab96caf8edbd ============================================================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================================ * rpmlint errors are either covered at top, or safe to ignore. Warnings on the debuginfo packages are safe to ignore. [Y] package meets naming guidelines [Y] package meets packaging guidelines [Y] license (GPLv3) OK [!] license text in %license [Y] matches source [Y] spec file legible, in am. english [Y] source matches upstream (48731cd7e612ff73fd6339378fbbff38dd3bcf6c243593b0d9773ca0051541c0) [Y] package compiles on Fedora 36 (x86_64) [!] no missing BR gcc missing [Y] no unnecessary BR [Y] no locales [Y] not relocatable [Y] owns all directories that it creates [Y] no duplicate files [!] permissions ok permissions not wrong, just unnecessarily explicit [Y] no %clean [Y] macro use consistent [Y] code, not content [Y] no need for -docs [Y] nothing in %doc affects runtime [Y] no need for .desktop file [!] missing devel package library unversioned ***** Please fix issues noted and show me a -3 and I should be able to approve it (and sponsor you). -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091317 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
