https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Maslennikov <andreyma(a)mellanox.com> ---
Spec URL:
https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/5be...
SRPM URL:
https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/5be...
Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21147884
Details:
Unversioned .so
moved to -devel.
> %{_datadir}/ucx/perftest/*
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ow...
> Extra files are now removed in %install, fixed issue with file pattern.
> Is there anything else to fix here? Please also see below.
The issue here is that the directories /usr/share/ucx and /usr/share/ucs/perftest are not
included in your packages. That's why I've linked the directory ownership
guidelines.
Fixed.
> -devel package now has 'Provides: %{name}-static =
%{version}-%{release}'.
It is as if you deliberately misread
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libr...
because even if a "compelling reason" where given as why to include the static
libs, they don't belong into the -devel package, if there are also shared libs.
Static libs moved to separate -static package. -devel depends on it.
> It reports "[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4
macros" complaining
> on AC_PROG_LIBTOOL. Is it critical and has to fixed?
That's not part of the review guidelines or packaging guidelines. The tool is trying
to be helpful. In case it became necessary to regenerate the configure script during the
build process, such as for a fix, obsolete macros would be problematic. It's something
to fix upstream. Make sure you can autoreconf the source tarball on a recent installation
of Fedora.
OK, thanks. autoreconf works on f25.
> Another error it reports is from rpmlint:
binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath.
> Is there any other way to correctly specify the path for .so/executable files?
If check-rpaths during an official build complained about it, proceed as described at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath Couldn't
reproduce it with fedora-review ran locally on spec/srpm. Added
--disable-rpath to %configure anyway.
> It also reports mismatch in sizes/checksums of the tarball,
which is
> expected: current link is for prev release, we will create a new one
> (v1.2.1) once pass this review.
That is completely *unexpected*. The SourceURL *must* link exactly the source archive
that is included in the src.rpm.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources
file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please
see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
Just want to have issues in
spec fixed before creating actual release. Can we
ignore this one for a while? Once others are resolved I'll fix it ASAP (will
required creating a release).
--
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