https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890891
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Unfortunately the packaging guideline failed to provide the step to
set up a versioned .so files.
No, you should check the Cmake help. You need to pass "SOVERSION x.x.x" in the
src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt somewhere
set_target_properties(Ptex_dynamic PROPERTIES OUTPUT_NAME Ptex SOVERSION x.x.x)
Patch:
# 0001-set-SOVERSION.patch
diff -up ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt.orig
ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt
--- ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt.orig 2019-03-08 18:39:47.000000000
+0100
+++ ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt 2020-11-07 11:12:18.517114444 +0100
@@ -32,7 +32,10 @@ endif()
if(PTEX_BUILD_SHARED_LIBS)
add_library(Ptex_dynamic SHARED ${SRCS})
- set_target_properties(Ptex_dynamic PROPERTIES OUTPUT_NAME Ptex)
+ set_target_properties(Ptex_dynamic
+ PROPERTIES
+ OUTPUT_NAME Ptex
+ SOVERSION ${PTEX_MAJOR_VERSION}.${PTEX_MINOR_VERSION})
target_include_directories(Ptex_dynamic
PUBLIC
$<INSTALL_INTERFACE:${CMAKE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR}>
===============================================================
Patch0: 0001-set-SOVERSION.patch
[…]
%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}
- Doc subpackage should be noarch
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: "Unknown or generated". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ptex/review-
ptex/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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ptex-
devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8960000 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ptex-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ptex-devel-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ptex-doc-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ptex-debuginfo-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ptex-debugsource-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ptex-2.3.2-2.fc34.src.rpm
ptex.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptxinfo
ptex-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ptex.src:46: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 46)
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
--
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