https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180989 --- Comment #17 from Bernhard Kaindl <bernhard@xxxxxxxxx> --- @Benson Muite: Automatic Package review is finished, asking for human review! Pew! Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bkaindl/uftrace/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05708877-uftrace/uftrace.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bkaindl/uftrace/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05708877-uftrace/uftrace-0.13-14.fc39.src.rpm Fixed the rpmlint messages. Remarks on the non applicable rpmlint messages: uftrace.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-nop.so -> uftrace does not build classic shared librares: They are special loadable modules especially for tracing. uftrace.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/uftrace -> ftrace uses advanced methods for tracing and does not support getting compiled as PIE. When forced, the test suite shows regressions. uftrace.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/uftrace -> false positive: uftrace as a tracing tool, it contains the function signature of gethostbyname in order to trace it's arguments when a traced program calls it but it does not have call gethostbyname(). Likewise, rpmlint's report on unversioned so-files does not apply because these are not classic shared libs. Here is the submission of the filled-out review: ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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. -> uftrace does not have development files, the .so files are special tracing plugins, internally to uftrace, not shared libraries. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/bash_completion, /usr/share/bash_completion/completions -> In Fedora, no package owns these. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/bash_completion, /usr/share/bash_completion/completions -> In Fedora, no package owns these. [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. -> Package is not a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package -> No development files, The .so files are internal tracing plugins, not shared libraries. [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. [x]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: uftrace-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.rpm uftrace-debuginfo-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.rpm uftrace-debugsource-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.rpm uftrace-0.13-14.fc39.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpg6h6la18')] checks: 31, packages: 4 uftrace.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-nop.so uftrace.aarch64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/uftrace uftrace.aarch64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/uftrace 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: uftrace-debuginfo-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpq9g3h_0o')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 uftrace.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-nop.so uftrace.aarch64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/uftrace uftrace.aarch64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/uftrace 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.9 s Review Remarks: uftrace.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-nop.so -> uftrace does not build classic shared librares: They are special loadable modules especially for tracing. uftrace.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/uftrace -> ftrace uses advanced methods for tracing and does not support getting compiled as PIE. When forced, the test suite shows regressions. uftrace.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/uftrace -> false positive: uftrace as a tracing tool, it contains the function signature of gethostbyname in order to trace it's arguments when a traced program calls it but it does not have call gethostbyname(). Likewise, rpmlint's report on unversioned so-files does not apply because these are not classic shared libs. Unversioned so-files -------------------- uftrace: /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-fast-single.so uftrace: /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-fast.so uftrace: /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-nop.so uftrace: /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount-single.so uftrace: /usr/lib64/uftrace/libmcount.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/namhyung/uftrace/archive/v0.13/uftrace-0.13.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6852edbafc0bbde9400bc1a4617c34647c6fe3adabba3f760b10957e94eeec62 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cffae82c68446c20cc3c7e87e71e57498805767a0d4085b4846f3c49f9e472d9 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- uftrace (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libcapstone.so.4()(64bit) libdw.so.1()(64bit) libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.122)(64bit) libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.126)(64bit) libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.143)(64bit) libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.161)(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) uftrace-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): uftrace-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- uftrace: libmcount-fast-single.so()(64bit) libmcount-fast.so()(64bit) libmcount-nop.so()(64bit) libmcount-single.so()(64bit) libmcount.so()(64bit) uftrace uftrace(aarch-64) uftrace-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmcount-fast-single.so-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libmcount-fast.so-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libmcount-nop.so-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libmcount-single.so-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libmcount.so-0.13-14.fc39.aarch64.debug()(64bit) uftrace-debuginfo uftrace-debuginfo(aarch-64) uftrace-debugsource: uftrace-debugsource uftrace-debugsource(aarch-64) -- 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=2180989 _______________________________________________ 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
