Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460887 Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bugs.michael@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(christian@xxxxxxx | |rg) --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> 2008-10-11 06:52:41 EDT --- > %define prefix /usr Please give the rationale for making this package relocatable: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Note that in your case it is a mistake: pcapnav-config isn't relocatable. > $ rpmlint libpcapnav-0.8-1.src.rpm > libpcapnav.src:18: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Christian Don't set "Packager". Your name appears in the %changelog. Setting the Packager tag should only be done in your local build-system for binary rpms *you* have built. Publishing src.rpms with a default Packager tag bears the risk that other people build and publish bad binary rpms with your name in the package header. > libpcapnav.src:20: W: hardcoded-prefix-tag %{prefix} See top of review. > libpcapnav.src:47: W: configure-without-libdir-spec Prefer the %configure macro where it works. Run "rpm --eval %configure" to see what it does. It also defines libdir as necessary. > libpcapnav.src:82: W: macro-in-%changelog prefix Avoid macros in %changelog. Some cause damage when they expand. You can escape them with a double %% as in %%prefix. > libpcapnav.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog It's preferred if you hardcode the package version-release at the right of every changelog entry. Like: * Tue Sep 02 2008 Christian Kreibich <christian@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.8-1 - Fix /usr/lib/ file list. > $ rpmlint libpcapnav-devel-0.8-1.i386.rpm > libpcapnav-devel.i386: W: no-documentation This can be ignored. > libpcapnav-devel.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin > /usr/lib/libpcapnav.so.0.0.0 > libpcapnav-devel.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun > /usr/lib/libpcapnav.so.0.0.0 These errors are only because your %files section is wrong. The *.so.* files belong into the main package, not the -devel pkg. > libpcapnav-devel.i386: W: no-version-dependency-on libpcapnav/libpcapnav-libs/liblibpcapnav 0.8 Most -devel packages must Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} so main pkg and -devel pkg are kept in sync for any changes. > libpcapnav-devel.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development > and documentation files for libpcapnav. Most times "Summary" is not a full sentence. It's preferred to not end it with a dot. > $ rpmlint libpcapnav-0.8-1.i386.rpm > libpcapnav.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libpcapnav-0.8/NEWS > libpcapnav.i386: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpcap See comment on -devel pkg. This must be versioned. > %define version 0.8 Just do Version: 0.8 instead of redefining %version earlier. > Release: 1 Using the %{dist} macro is not mandatory, but may be helpful if using exactly the same src.rpm for several Fedora releases. -> Release: 1%{?dist} > # Using FTP to get around SourceForge's habit of adding something after .tar.gz > Source: ftp://ftp.sf.net/pub/sourceforge/netdude/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz There are recommendations on working http links somewhere in the Fedora Packaging Wiki. > Requires: libpcap Delete this. There is an automatic dependency on the libpcap SONAME added by rpmbuild. We rely on these dependencies. Query the libpcapnav package to see. > %description devel > Static libraries, header files and documentation > for libpcapnav We don't build and include static libs unless there is very good reason to do that. Libtool archives (*.la) should be deleted, too. > %build Build log contains many format string type warnings, e.g. using %u for long int. > if [ "$SMP" != "" ]; then There is %{?_smp_mflags} that can simply be appended to "make". > make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{prefix} install Use: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install Can the tests be run in the %check section of the spec? Should they pass? $ ./run-tests.sh Running test 1 ... FAILED. > %files > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog NEWS README > %{prefix}/lib/lib*.so.* This would break on 64-bit multiarch platforms where there is /usr/lib64 (and /usr/lib for 32-bit libs). Hence use: %{_libdir}/*.so.* > %files devel > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %doc %{prefix}/share/gtk-doc/html/pcapnav This is empty and only adds empty directories to the pkg. > %{prefix}/lib/libpcapnav* %_libdir and include only the *.so symlink here: %{_libdir}/*.so > %{prefix}/include/pcapnav.h %_includedir > %{prefix}/bin/pcapnav-config %_bindir > drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/pcapnav > drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/pcapnav/images > $ pcapnav-config --cflags --libs > -I/usr/include > -L/usr/lib -lpcapnav -lpcap The -I and -L here are bad as they alter the search order. Can you make it not override default search paths with default search paths? Hope this catches all packaging issues. But only an updated src.rpm will tell. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review