https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033



--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.mich...@gmx.net> ---
> %files
> %{_libdir}/lib*.so*

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages


> %{_datadir}/ucx/perftest/*
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
> 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.


> -devel package now has 'Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}'.

It is as if you deliberately misread

 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries

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.


> 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.


> 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


> 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.

-- 
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to