https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2145834 --- Comment #4 from dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #1) > Ok here goes round 1. Many thanks for such a speedy review! Updated files with the changes below are at: https://fedorapeople.org/~dctrud/ > > # Copyright (c) 2017-2022, Sylabs, Inc. All rights reserved. > > ... > > I don't think any of this is necessary in the spec file. Removed. > > License: BSD-3-Clause and LBNL BSD and ASL 2.0 > > Licenses should all be listed in SPDX format [1] Changed per suggestion, and comment #3 r.e AND conjunction. > > > BuildRequires: git > > This doesn't appear to be needed. Removed. > > # 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] For release candidates our naming would be e.g. 'singularity-ce-3.11.0-rc.1.tar.gz'. AFAIK this needs to be RPM version 3.11.0~rc.1 so it sorts before 3.11.0. We probably won't package any release candidates here... so I could remove it, but that would mean the spec file here differs more from the one in our source repo (which I will update after advice etc. here). If there's a strong wish to remove it, then I can. > > %autosetup -n %{name}-%{src_version} > > This can change to just "%autosetup" if we get rid of the src_version > variable. See above. > > * 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 Fixed - sorry this was a silly one. > Does singularity rotate it's own log files? If not you need to ship a > logrotate config. [3] Singularity doesn't have a daemon, and doesn't create log files, so this shouldn't be needed. > RPMLint: > > > singularity-ce.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/singularity/capability.json > > singularity-ce.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/singularity/global-pgp-public Unfortunately I'm not confident these can be left to runtime creation. I'll open issues on the upstream repo and verify this, but for now I've added an rpmlintrc. > > 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] Created the rpmlintrc - https://fedorapeople.org/~dctrud/singularity-ce.rpmlintrc > > 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 Removed. Apologies... these are necessary when building our bundled conmon source... which is not being done for this packaging. Thanks again. -- 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
