https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208576 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Summary : Issues: ======= - 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 gamerzillagobj.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libgamerzillagobj.so gamerzillagobj.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gir-1.0/Gamerzilla-0.1.gir OK, the main problem with your package is that you didn't make a devel subpackage for the .so, quoting the guidelines : Fedora packages must be designed with a logical separation of files. Specifically, -devel packages must be used to contain files which are intended solely for development or needed only at build-time. This is done to minimize the install footprint for users. There are some types of files which almost always belong in a -devel package: - Header files (foo.h), usually found in /usr/include - Static library files when the package does not provide any matching shared library files. See Packaging Static Libraries for more information about this scenario. - Unversioned shared system library files, when a matching versioned shared system library file is also present. For example, if your package contains: /usr/lib/libfoo.so.3.0.0 /usr/lib/libfoo.so.3 /usr/lib/libfoo.so The versioned shared library files (/usr/lib/libfoo.so.3.2.0 and /usr/lib/libfoo.so.3) are necessary for users to run programs linked against libfoo, so they belong in the base package. The other, unversioned, shared library file (/usr/lib/libfoo.so) is only used to actually link libfoo to code being compiled, and is not necessary to be installed on a users system. This means that it belongs in a -devel package. Please note that in most cases, only the fully versioned shared library file (/usr/lib/libfoo.so.3.2.0) is an actual file, all of the other files are symbolic links to it. When a shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the packager should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library file. However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users to run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package. If upstream versions the shared library file at a future point, packagers must be careful to move to the versioned layout described above. The %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/Gamerzilla-0.1.gir goes also into devel package. So you would get a package like this (the spacing has been added for my OCD): Name: gamerzillagobj Version: 0.1.0 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Gamerzilla GObject Introspection Library License: Zlib URL: https://github.com/dulsi/gamerzillagobj Source0: http://www.identicalsoftware.com/gamerzilla/%{name}-%{version}.tgz BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: libgamerzilla-devel BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: pkgconfig BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gobject-2.0) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gobject-introspection-1.0) %description GamerzillaGObj is a gobject based introspection library to allow shell-extensions to use Gamerzilla. %package devel Summary: Development files for GamerzillaGObj Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} %description devel Development libraries and header files for GamerzillaGObj. %prep %autosetup %build %make_build %install %make_install PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIB=%{_lib} %files %license LICENSE %{_libdir}/libgamerzillagobj.so.0 %{_libdir}/libgamerzillagobj.so.0.0.0 %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0/Gamerzilla-0.1.typelib %files devel %{_libdir}/libgamerzillagobj.so %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/Gamerzilla-0.1.gir %changelog %autochangelog =============================================================================== Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [X]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "zlib License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* zlib License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gamerzillagobj/review- gamerzillagobj/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: 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. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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). [=]: 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. [=]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gamerzillagobj-0.1.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm gamerzillagobj-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm gamerzillagobj-debugsource-0.1.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm gamerzillagobj-0.1.0-1.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/tmp4ima6jz6')] checks: 31, packages: 4 gamerzillagobj.x86_64: W: no-documentation gamerzillagobj.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libgamerzillagobj.so gamerzillagobj.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gir-1.0/Gamerzilla-0.1.gir =============================================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =============================================================================================================== -- 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=2208576 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202208576%23c1 _______________________________________________ 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
