Bug 1427182
| Summary: | Review Request: libzypp - A package management library | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Neal Gompa <ngompa13> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, zbyszek |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zbyszek:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-04-19 03:08:16 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1427171 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1427185 | ||
|
Description
Neal Gompa
2017-02-27 14:32:47 UTC
Peachy! I was just wondering why systemd-nspawn(1) does not carry a opensuse example. If zypper is packaged, I'll submit a patch to add that.
+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (GPLv2+)
+ license is specified correctly
+ scriptlets appear correct
+ builds and installs OK
+ latest version
+ R/P/BR appear correct
BuildRequires should be specified one-per-line, for legibility and diffability.
Summary should probably mention that this is suse-related. Maybe something
like "Summary: Package management library used by OpenSUSE and ...".
libudev-devel → systemd-devel
%make_build in %tests should be moved to %build.
fedora-review finds the following minor issues:
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/libzypp
(Remove "/*" from "%doc %{_docdir}/libzypp/*".)
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libzypp,
/etc/logrotate.d
(I think you should add %dir /etc/logrotate.d to %files.)
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libzypp-16.4.3-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
libzypp-devel-16.4.3-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
libzypp-devel-doc-16.4.3-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
libzypp-debuginfo-16.4.3-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
libzypp-16.4.3-1.fc27.src.rpm
libzypp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsolv -> absolve
OK.
libzypp.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/libzypp.so.1600.4.3
Most likely false positive.
libzypp.x86_64: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/zypp-history.lr
Looks OK to me.
libzypp.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/zypp/notify-message 644 /bin/bash
chmod +x ?
libzypp.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /etc/zypp/repos.d /etc/yum.repos.d
False positive.
libzypp.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
libzypp.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
OK
libzypp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
OK
libzypp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
OK
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/SATResolver.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/ProblemTypes.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/ProblemSolutionIgnore.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/SolverQueueItem.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/SolverQueueItemInstallOneOf.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/SolverQueueItemUpdate.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/SolverQueueItemLock.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/SolverQueueItemInstall.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/ProblemSolutionCombi.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/SolverQueueItemDelete.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/Types.h
libzypp-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/zypp/solver/detail/Resolver.h
Who cares ;)
libzypp-devel-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency libzypp-devel
Is this dep necessary?
libzypp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Libzypp HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
Works fine here.
libzypp.src:99: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp
libzypp.src:100: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp/plugins
libzypp.src:101: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp/plugins/appdata
libzypp.src:102: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp/plugins/commit
libzypp.src:103: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp/plugins/services
libzypp.src:104: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp/plugins/system
libzypp.src:105: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp/plugins/urlresolver
libzypp.src:136: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/zypp/
Dunno, might be OK. This probably breaks parallel installation of 32 and 64 bit versions.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 49 errors, 8 warnings.
Looks all good. The issues are very minor, but let's do another round, since there's quite a few of them.
> zbyszek: I need to see if I can fix libzypp's plugins to be installed in libexec rather than lib I don't think there's any reason to prefer libexec. FHS itself says both are OK (https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s07.html). I think I've fixed up this: Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/libzypp.spec SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/libzypp-16.6.1-1.fc25.src.rpm (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > Summary should probably mention that this is suse-related. Maybe something > like "Summary: Package management library used by OpenSUSE and ...". Not a requirement, but I still think it'd be a good idea. > libzypp-devel-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency libzypp-devel > Is this dep necessary? libzypp-devel-doc contains only html pages. It should be OK to drop this dependency (and add %doc %dir /usr/share/doc/libzypp). [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/libzypp [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libzypp, /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/libexec/zypp zypp-tools.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/zypp/notify-message 644 /bin/bash Copying from previous comments: + package name is OK + license is acceptable (GPLv2+) + license is specified correctly + scriptlets appear correct + builds and installs OK + latest version + R/P/BR appear correct and continuing + %check is present and passes fedora-review finds no other issues. Package is APPROVED. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libzypp zypper-1.13.22-1.fc26 libzypp-16.6.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ba82706aa3 libzypp-16.6.1-1.fc26, zypper-1.13.22-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ba82706aa3 libzypp-16.6.1-1.fc26, zypper-1.13.22-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |