https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179

Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |luto@kernel.org Docs Contact| |luto@kernel.org Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org --- Given that you're packaged editorconfig-devel, can you split out editorconfig-libs? That way the 32-bit version will be installable on 64-bit machines.

editorconfig-doc should either include the license or should require something that does.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179

--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- barracks510's scratch build of editorconfig-0.12.0-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12685907

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179

--- Comment #5 from Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org --- There's a bunch of stuff here. Please re-run fedora-review yourself when you update the package.

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: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

Somehow libeditorconfig.so ended up in -libs and in -devel. I think it's a result of %{_libdir}/* in the %files -n %{name}-libs section.

- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in editorconfig-libs See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/luto/devel/fedora/editorconfig/editorconfig/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Requires: pcre should not be needed. rpm figured out:

libpcre.so.1()(64bit)

for you.

[s]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [s]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [s]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [s]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [s]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 491520 bytes in 71 files. [!]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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: [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in editorconfig-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 1003520 bytes in /usr/share

Can you make the -doc package noarch? If not, it's not the end of the world.

[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).

Rpmlint ------- Checking: editorconfig-0.12.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm editorconfig-devel-0.12.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm editorconfig-doc-0.12.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm editorconfig-libs-0.12.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm editorconfig-debuginfo-0.12.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm editorconfig-0.12.0-2.fc21.src.rpm editorconfig.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 editorconfig-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib editorconfig-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 editorconfig-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation editorconfig-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 editorconfig-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 editorconfig-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: editorconfig-debuginfo-0.12.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- editorconfig-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib editorconfig-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 editorconfig-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation editorconfig-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so editorconfig-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 editorconfig-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 editorconfig.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so.0.12.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.

Requires -------- editorconfig-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

editorconfig-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): editorconfig(x86-64) libeditorconfig.so.0()(64bit)

editorconfig-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): editorconfig(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libeditorconfig.so.0()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

editorconfig-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): editorconfig(x86-64)

editorconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) pcre rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides -------- editorconfig-debuginfo: editorconfig-debuginfo editorconfig-debuginfo(x86-64)

editorconfig-devel: editorconfig-devel editorconfig-devel(x86-64)

editorconfig-libs: editorconfig-libs editorconfig-libs(x86-64) libeditorconfig.so.0()(64bit)

editorconfig-doc: editorconfig-doc editorconfig-doc(x86-64)

editorconfig: editorconfig editorconfig(x86-64) libeditorconfig.so.0()(64bit)

Unversioned so-files -------------------- editorconfig-libs: /usr/lib64/libeditorconfig.so

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-core-c/archive/v0.12.0.tar.gz#/... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a53b67aca5ba307c37e9e002fa6cc5e5399ac0099eaeeca700ad703ee6e5278b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a53b67aca5ba307c37e9e002fa6cc5e5399ac0099eaeeca700ad703ee6e5278b

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn editorconfig-0.12.0-2.fc23.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179

--- Comment #7 from Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org --- Still multiple issues.

editorconfig-libs and editorconfig-doc both unnecessarily depend on editorconfig. These are both serious problems -- the former will break multilib and the latter will fail to install on anything except whatever architecture happened to build it in koji. Once these are fixed, they'll need %license directives.

editorconfig-libs curiously does *not* depend on libeditorconfig. That's because it was built wrong:

/usr/bin/cc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-swi tches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wl, -z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld CMakeFiles/editorconfig_b in.dir/main.c.o -o ../../bin/editorconfig-0.12.0 -rdynamic ../../lib/libeditorc onfig_static.a -lpcre

To fix that, you'll either need to patch the cmake rules or fix the build options to get it to link against the shared library.

Once you fix *that*, the %license directive in the main package can optionally go away.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179

David Demelier demelier.david@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |demelier.david@gmail.com

--- Comment #9 from David Demelier demelier.david@gmail.com --- Any news on this package? I would like to have it as well and the proposed one is better than mine :)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179

Dennis Chen barracks510@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Flags|needinfo?(barracks510@gmail | |.com) | Last Closed| |2018-10-30 16:19:05

--- Comment #11 from Dennis Chen barracks510@gmail.com ---

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1573855 ***