--- Comment #9 from Andrey Maslennikov <> ---
Spec URL:

Koji build:

> > %files
> > %{_libdir}/lib*.so*
Unversioned .so moved to -devel.

> > %{_datadir}/ucx/perftest/*
> > 
> >
> > 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
> 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: 
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.
> 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
package-review mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to