https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2145834 Jonathan Wright <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wright <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok here goes round 1. > # Copyright (c) 2017-2022, Sylabs, Inc. All rights reserved. > # Copyright (c) 2017, SingularityWare, LLC. All rights reserved. > # > # Copyright (c) 2015-2017, Gregory M. Kurtzer. All rights reserved. > # > # Copyright (c) 2016, The Regents of the University of California, through > # Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required > # approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved. > # > # This software is licensed under a customized 3-clause BSD license. Please > # consult LICENSE file distributed with the sources of this project regarding > # your rights to use or distribute this software. > # > # NOTICE. This Software was developed under funding from the U.S. Department of > # Energy and the U.S. Government consequently retains certain rights. As such, > # the U.S. Government has been granted for itself and others acting on its > # behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license in the Software > # to reproduce, distribute copies to the public, prepare derivative works, and > # perform publicly and display publicly, and to permit other to do so. I don't think any of this is necessary in the spec file. > License: BSD-3-Clause and LBNL BSD and ASL 2.0 Licenses should all be listed in SPDX format [1] You probably want this: License: BSD-3-Clause and BSD-3-Clause-LBNL and Apache-2.0 > BuildRequires: git This doesn't appear to be needed. > # The version used for the src tar filename can be different to the rpm version. > # This is due to different handling of pre-release version numbers in e.g. semver, > # rpm, dpkg. > %global src_version 3.10.4 What are some example cases where this could be needed? RPM can match upstream version, even with weird pre-release things, so it'd be best to only have the one "Version" var. [2] > %autosetup -n %{name}-%{src_version} This can change to just "%autosetup" if we get rid of the src_version variable. > * Wed Nov 23 2022 David Trudgian <dtrudg@xxxxxxxxx> 3.10.4 You need a "-" between the email and the version, and also the release on the end, ie -1. ie: * Wed Nov 23 2022 David Trudgian <dtrudg@xxxxxxxxx> - 3.10.4-1 --- Does singularity rotate it's own log files? If not you need to ship a logrotate config. [3] --- RPMLint: > singularity-ce.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/singularity/capability.json > singularity-ce.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/singularity/global-pgp-public These files shouldn't be included unless empty files are required for some reason. [4] > E: setuid-binary /usr/libexec/singularity/bin/starter-suid root 4755 > E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/singularity/bin/starter-suid 4755 This non-standard permission makes sense to me, but you need to tell rpmlint that it's OK. [5] tl;dr create a file, singularity-ce.rpmlintrc alongside the spec file, and include the following content: addFilter(r'setuid-binary /usr/libexec/singularity/bin/starter-suid') addFilter(r'non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/singularity/bin/starter-suid') > singularity-ce.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib2 > singularity-ce.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libseccomp Remove the following 2 lines: Requires: glib2 Requires: libseccomp These are handled automatically by RPM metadata. === 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names 2. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ 3. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_log_files 4. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#zero-length 5. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/blob/main/README.md#configuration -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2145834 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
