Bug 828188
Summary: | Review Request: reprepro - Debian package repository producer | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Sebastien Caps <sebastien.caps> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | cedric.olivier, gregswift, ignatenko, mail, notting, package-review, rc040203, vanmeeuwen+fedora |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-12-31 09:22:48 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Sebastien Caps
2012-06-04 12:39:05 UTC
rpmlint gave warnings on SRPM : reprepro.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) debian -> Debian reprepro.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C tool to handle local repositories of debian packages. reprepro.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C tool to handle local repositories of debian packages. reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udeb -> deb, u deb reprepro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US indices -> induces, indies, indicts reprepro.src:6: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Sebastien Don't set "Packager". It should be removed, so as to use rebuilder's own defaults. Your name appears in the %changelog reprepro.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 1) You must use uniform spacing and or tabs in your spec file *** Bug 624023 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Some additional comments to those from Cédric. - The latest release is 4.12.3 - Isn't openssl and gpgme picked automatically by rpm? Already mentioned in Comment 5 of 624023 - man pages doesn't need to be marked as %doc - %defattr doesn't follow the Fedora guidelines $ rpmlint ./reprepro.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. New SPEC: http://virer.net/repo/raw/reprepro.spec New SRPM: http://virer.net/repo/raw/reprepro-4.12.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Fix spec file to follow %clean %buildroot guidelines SRPMS: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012081417/reprepro-4.12.3-2.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012081417/reprepro.spec Fedora 18 removed db4-devel package, switching to libdb-devel build dependence SPEC: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012083009/reprepro.spec SRPM: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012083009/reprepro-4.12.3-3.fc16.src.rpm F18 Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436849 Are you still looking for a sponsor? Yes, I still looking for a sponsor. Fedora Account System Username: virer 3 remarks: 1. Any particular reasons why you are building without bz2-support? From your build.log: ... checking for BZ2_bzCompressInit in -lbz2... no configure: WARNING: "no libbz2 found, compiling without" ... If not, you likely are missing a BuildRequires: bzip2-devel 2. Your spec contains this: make %{?_smp_mflags} RPM_OPT_FLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" The "RPM_OPT_FLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is meaningless (and therefore bogus). Please remove it. 3. The code bundles copies of md5.*, sha1.*, sha256.*. Very "interesting" about these bundled versions is this pretty serious warning compilation of sha256.c raises: sha256.c: In function 'SHA256Final': sha256.c:192:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] sha256.c:193:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] 1. For bz2 I don't know, here it is mentioned to not include bzip2 not sure about bzip2-devel should I add it ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 2. ok removed 3. I don't have theses warning under FC16 I will try to fix it thx. I had the need to build a debian repo on my rhel environment today and found this so I went to build the latest version of the SPEC (I included the bzip2 and removed the RPM_OPT_FLAGS). Upon initial --rebuild of srpm on my centos6 box: $ rpmbuild --rebuild -ba srpms/reprepro-4.12.3-3.fc16.src.rpm Installing srpms/reprepro-4.12.3-3.fc16.src.rpm warning: user caps does not exist - using root warning: group caps does not exist - using root warning: user caps does not exist - using root warning: group caps does not exist - using root error: Failed build dependencies: libdb-devel is needed by reprepro-4.12.3-3.el6.x86_64 so: 1: If you're planning on supporting rhel as well you might wrap the db-devel Build requires in a conditional block? Considering rhel6 will probably be the last to have it I'd do something like: %if 0%{?rhel} <= 6 BuildRequires: db4-devel %else BuildRequires: libdb-devel %endif 2: (for someone aside from sebastien) Now that defattr doesn't get defined, we get those user errors over in rhel land... should that also be wrapped in a conditional block if you want to support both? I also did not see the sha256 warnings mentioned in comment 10 fixed missing bzip2-devel and libarchive-devel build dependencies put %deffattr for el6 in %files fixed fc17 & fc18 sha256 problem: Now using openssl md5 and sha for md5 and sha256. For sha1 I keep using bundled library since it have some differences sha1.count in the class ->I will publish the patch upstream asap and try to find a way to fix in future release. SRPM: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/20121030/reprepro-4.12.3-4.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/20121030/reprepro.spec upstream reply for sha256 fc18 warnings: *** sha256.c:192:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] sha256.c:193:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] Those should be harmless. If you want to be sure, you can cherry-pick commit 2688a890 (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=mirrorer/reprepro.git;a=commit;h=2688a890). *** So I put this patch in the last version: SRPM: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/20121031/reprepro-4.12.3-5.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/20121031/reprepro.spec F18 Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4642198 Based on new comments from Greg Swift I fix %ifs block. SPEC: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012103102/reprepro.spec SRPM: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012103102/reprepro-4.12.3-6.fc16.src.rpm F18 Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4643439 Since I still lack of sponsor and I have no more time to spend on it, I close it. I've submitted new review request *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1170529 *** |