Spec URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/shiny.spec SRPM URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/shiny-0.2-1.gitf41178f.fc21.src.rpm Description: Shader and material management library for OGRE. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
I have no idea how to fix this: shiny.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libshiny.so libshiny.so shiny.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libshiny.so boost::filesystem::absolute(boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::path const&) shiny.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libshiny.so boost::thread_detail::commit_once_region(boost::once_flag&) shiny.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libshiny.so boost::wave::grammars::expression_grammar_gen<boost::wave::cpplexer::lex_token<boost::wave::util::file_position<boost::wave::util::flex_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>, boost::wave::util::CowString<boost::wave::util::AllocatorStringStorage<char, std::allocator<char> >, char*> > > > >::evaluate(std::_List_const_iterator<boost::wave::cpplexer::lex_token<boost::wave::util::file_position<boost::wave::util::flex_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>, boost::wave::util::CowString<boost::wave::util::AllocatorStringStorage<char, std::allocator<char> >, char*> > > > > const&, std::_List_const_iterator<boost::wave::cpplexer::lex_token<boost::wave::util::file_position<boost::wave::util::flex_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>, boost::wave::util::CowString<boost::wave::util::AllocatorStringStorage<char, std::allocator<char> >, char*> > > > > const&, boost::wave::util::file_position<boost::wave::util::flex_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>, boost::wave::util::CowString<boost::wave::util::AllocatorStringStorage<char, std::allocator<char> >, char*> > > const&, bool, boost::wave::grammars::value_error&) shiny.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libshiny.so boost::filesystem::path::root_directory() const shiny.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libshiny.so boost::filesystem::detail::directory_iterator_construct(boost::filesystem::directory_iterator&, boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::system::error_code*)
> shiny.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libshiny.so libshiny.so If libshiny is supposed to be linked dynamically (and not just accessed via dlopen), it should get a proper soname reflecting the ABI version, e.g. something like libshiny.so.1. As long as future versions of the library don't change the interface, the soversion should be constant while the version of the package may increase, of course. I suggest to ask the upstream developer whether he/she can add support for building the shared library including a reliable ABI versioning. Since there is no proper shlib support yet, you can also package the static library.
(In reply to Martin Gieseking from comment #2) > > shiny.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libshiny.so libshiny.so > > If libshiny is supposed to be linked dynamically (and not just accessed via > dlopen), it should get a proper soname reflecting the ABI version, e.g. > something like libshiny.so.1. As long as future versions of the library > don't change the interface, the soversion should be constant while the > version of the package may increase, of course. I suggest to ask the > upstream developer whether he/she can add support for building the shared > library including a reliable ABI versioning. > > Since there is no proper shlib support yet, you can also package the static > library. I've sent bugreport[0] to upstream. I'm packaging this because stuntrally using bundled shiny. It just compiling shiny and linking with it. Probably you can help me write correctly patch for providing shared libraries ? [0]https://github.com/scrawl/shiny/issues/20
I think I can help you out here, the only problem is what soversion to set? I also have package that does not set a soversion nor maintains ABI compatibility so what I have ended up doing is setting the soversion arbitrarily and then on new releases use abi-compliance-checker (that I also maintain) to check for ABI breakages, if found then I increment the soversion and rebuild dependencies.
I agree with Richard. If upstream doesn't want to offer shlib support, it's also possible to manage it locally, but that's not necessarily required IMHO. Just a short note: Your patch looks good so far. In order to set the soversion, you have to add something like the following to CMakeLists.txt. Just put it somewhere after set(SHINY_LIBRARY ${SHINY_LIBRARY} PARENT_SCOPE): set_target_properties( shiny PROPERTIES VERSION 0.0.0 SOVERSION 0 ) As a result, you get the three files libshiny.so.0.0.0, libshiny.so.0, and libshiny.so where the last two are symlinks. libshiny.so is a development file and should go to the devel package.
Yes, already working on it :) I also had to add install targets since cmake doesn't automatically create the symbolic links unless you have cmake install the libraries. Right now I'm leaving the header install alone since your method is easier. I'm having more trouble with the private library, libshiny.OgrePlatform.so. Are you sure it needs to go into a subdirectory of /usr/lib{64}? There's no chance of a name clash...
Created attachment 895500 [details] Patch to fix install, soversion, and boost linking.
Created attachment 895501 [details] Updated spec file, soversion is set from spec file.
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #6) > Yes, already working on it :) > > I also had to add install targets since cmake doesn't automatically create > the symbolic links unless you have cmake install the libraries. Right now > I'm leaving the header install alone since your method is easier. > > I'm having more trouble with the private library, libshiny.OgrePlatform.so. > Are you sure it needs to go into a subdirectory of /usr/lib{64}? There's no > chance of a name clash... take a look ogre-pading.... There the same library installing to /usr/lib64/OGRE/. (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #8) > Created attachment 895501 [details] > Updated spec file, soversion is set from spec file. Thank you! (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #7) > Created attachment 895500 [details] > Patch to fix install, soversion, and boost linking. Thank you! Probably I will give you permissions to fedorapeople git repo and we can work there?
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #9) > Probably I will give you permissions to fedorapeople git repo and we can > work there? Sure. I just know enough git to get by (haha) but sounds good to me. Richard
New SPEC: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/shiny.spec New SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/shiny-0.2-2.gitf41178f.fc21.src.rpm * Wed May 14 2014 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069> - 0.2-2.gitf41178f - Add patch to set soversion, install targets, and linking with Boost.
Ok. now we have one rpmlint error: shiny.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libshiny.so.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 Could you fix it ?
Done. I didn't bother with bumping the release for such a small problem though. Should be ready for fedora-review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/shiny/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [-]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: shiny-0.2-2.gitf41178f.fc20.x86_64.rpm shiny-devel-0.2-2.gitf41178f.fc20.x86_64.rpm shiny-0.2-2.gitf41178f.fc20.src.rpm shiny.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Shader -> Shaker, Shared, Shade shiny.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Shader -> Shaker, Shared, Shade shiny-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier shiny-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation shiny.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Shader -> Shaker, Shared, Shade shiny.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Shader -> Shaker, Shared, Shade 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint shiny-devel shiny shiny-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier shiny-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation shiny.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Shader -> Shaker, Shared, Shade shiny.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Shader -> Shaker, Shared, Shade 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- shiny-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libshiny.so.0()(64bit) ogre-devel shiny(x86-64) shiny (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libboost_filesystem.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_wave.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) ogre rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- shiny-devel: shiny-devel shiny-devel(x86-64) shiny: libshiny.OgrePlatform.so()(64bit) libshiny.so.0()(64bit) shiny shiny(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- shiny: /usr/lib64/OGRE/libshiny.OgrePlatform.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/scrawl/shiny/archive/f41178f82765828ac09f9f1da5bd28038c94311d/shiny-0.2-f41178f.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 606f15d72582c89bfc9c3b26c555eff90e7d0949e1ae3bd11254bb15aff10cce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 606f15d72582c89bfc9c3b26c555eff90e7d0949e1ae3bd11254bb15aff10cce Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -r -n /home/build/rpmbuild/shiny/SRPMS/shiny-0.2-2.gitf41178f.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG *** APPROVED ***
Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: shiny Short Description: Shader and material management library for OGRE Owners: ignatenkobrain hobbes1069 Branches: f20
Git done (by process-git-requests).
shiny-0.3-1.gitdc53364.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shiny-0.3-1.gitdc53364.fc20
shiny-0.3-1.gitdc53364.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
shiny-0.3-1.gitdc53364.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.