Spec URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/palo.spec SRPM URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/palo-5.1-4.fc21.src.rpm Description: Palo is a cell-oriented, multi-dimensional in-memory OLAP server typically used for analysis and data consolidation. Multi-dimensional data can be queried interactively and written back for further consolidation. The server stores and manipulates data in memory. Bespoke Java, PHP, C/C++, and .NET clients can access the palo database via an API or plug-in modules are available for spreadsheet applications like Calc. Fedora Account System Username:myk52348 This is my first package, so I am looking for a sponsor. At this point I am only looking to package the core server, although may follow-up with client libraries and the ETL(extract-transform-load) server. The palo code server is written in c and builds using cmake. The c and c++ client code build using the automake tools. The ETL server builds using maven. At its core this package is a database server so that experience would probably be most relevant. I have no prior packaging experience so I included a couple of questions below that I need help with. Issue 1: on the command line the cmake command cmake ../5.1 successfully builds the server. But when creating the source RPM, this same command fails, unless patch0 is applied. Patch0 essentially hard-codes the paths where the dependency libraries can be located, which is not great. I'm guessing that the macro: %global _hardened_build 1 is changing the cmake behavior. Is there a better way to handle this than via a patch? Issue 2: when building with koji, I get the error: svn: E670002: Unable to connect to a repository at URL 'https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1' svn: E670002: Name or service not known Since the source is stored in a SVN repo and the packaging guidelines indicate I should not place the source into the SOURCE folder, but rather access it from the upstream, how can I resolve this error? Thanks and regards, Michael
I've informed the upstream that I have begun the process of packaging the palo server for fedora with the following post: http://www.jedox.com/community/palo-forum/index.php?page=Thread&postID=18062#post18062
As for issue #2, the build system doesn't allow network access -- so you'll need to make sure any needed files/sources are part of the sources in the spec file, and not downloaded on-demand.
Thanks Jared - that allowed me to proceed with the Koji build, but am now seeing a couple more build issues. I'll look to address those before updating the .spec and .rpm files.
Ok, updated the BuildRequires and patch0 to fix the koji build issues (see https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9446037). The updated .spec and .src.rpm have replaced the old ones, so still: Spec URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/palo.spec SRPM URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/palo-5.1-4.fc21.src.rpm After going over patch0 in more detail to fix the koji builds, I'm going come to accept this as an upstream issue and will address it as such. Ready for the review to proceed.
There is a separate list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets in the Cached Package Review Tracker at: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ It is not necessary to put 'FE-NEEDSPONSOR' into the summary line. Entering your full name in the bugzilla account details can be helpful. Try pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket: fedora-review -b 1209166 It evaluates the "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines, downloads the latest packages, performs local test-builds and many checks related to the packaging guidelines.
myk52348's scratch build of palo-5.1-4.fc21.src.rpm for f22 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11308524
Spec URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/5.1-4/palo.spec SRPM URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/5.1-4/palo-5.1-4.fc22.src.rpm Thanks Michael. I've reviewed the output of fedora-review and updated the .spec file accordingly. Above are the new URL links. Review report to follow shortly.
Issues List =========== 0. Link provided from un-versioned .so to versioned .so: I believe this is ok. 1. License inconsistencies where the software claims to be GPL v2 licensed but URL in LICENSE file points to GPL v3 license. Issue reported upstream. 2. Software provided by upsteam in a set of folders rather than in .tgz. .tgz provided by packager. URL points to folders where source code is available. 3. cmake used so no %check section in .spec 4. No man file: documentation not in public domain; request made upstream to re-license some documentation. 5. Numerous undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings from rpmlint: not sure how to address these. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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. COMMENT: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so is a link to libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2)) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/myk/1209166-palo/licensecheck.txt COMMENT: license inconsistency reported upstream here: http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1/palo-5.1.tgz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags COMMENT: .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by packaging guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders. .tgz is provided by packager. URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source code. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. COMMENT: cmake used not make. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: palo-5.1-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-5.1-4.fc22.src.rpm palo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/palo/LICENSE COMMENT: As noted above, issue reported upstream here: http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 palo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary palo COMMENT: Documentation not in public domain / not copyleft licensed; request for same made as part of http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 palo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1/palo-5.1.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found COMMENT: As noted above, .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by packaging guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders. .tgz is provided by packager. URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source code. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: palo-debuginfo-5.1-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/palo-5.1/Library/Engine/CubeFileStream.h COMMENT many incorrect-fsf-address errors removed here as post is too long. palo.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so typeinfo for palo::Task COMMENT many undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings removed here as post is too long. palo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 palo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/palo/LICENSE palo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary palo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 563 errors, 181 warnings. Requires -------- palo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig config(palo) libboost_regex.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libicui18n.so.54()(64bit) libicuuc.so.54()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- palo: config(palo) libhttps.palo.so.0()(64bit) palo palo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- palo: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1209166 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
myk52348's scratch build of palo-5.1-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm for f22 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11357361
myk52348's scratch build of palo-5.1-4.fc22.src.rpm for f22 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11357362
This message is a reminder that Fedora 21 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 21. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '21'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 21 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
myk52348's scratch build of palo-5.1.4-0.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11726846
Spec URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/5.1-4/palo.spec SRPM URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/5.1-4/palo-5.1-4.fc23.src.rpm Some updates to run the palo daemon under its own user and group and within its own SELinux security context. Also added a man page.
Spec URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/5.1-4/palo.spec SRPM URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo/5.1-4/palo-5.1.4-0.fc23.src.rpm Typo correction.
Issues List =========== 1. License inconsistencies where the software claims to be GPL v2 licensed but URL in LICENSE file points to GPL v3 license. Issue reported upstream. 2. Software provided by upsteam in a set of folders rather than in .tgz. .tgz provided by packager. URL points to folders where source code is available. 3. cmake used so no %check section in .spec 4. Numerous undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings from rpmlint: not sure how to address these. 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. [!]: 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. COMMENT: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so links to libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2)) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 146 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/myk/1209166-palo/licensecheck.txt COMMENT: license inconsistency reported upstream here: http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/selinux/targeted, /usr/share/selinux/mls, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/share/selinux/minimum, /usr/lib/systemd [X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [X]: 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. [X]: 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. [X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 235520 bytes in 8 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]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1.4/palo-5.1.4.tgz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags COMMENT: .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by packaging guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders. .tgz is provided by packager. URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source code. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. COMMENT: this warning refers to make for SELinux policy which cannot use -j directive. [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). [X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in palo- debuginfo [X]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [X]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. COMMENT: cmake used not make. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: palo-5.1.4-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-debuginfo-5.1.4-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-5.1.4-0.fc22.src.rpm palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/bin/palo palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/palo palo palo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/palo/LICENSE palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo palo.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo/Data palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo/Data palo palo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/build/Config/build.h COMMENT: As noted above, issue reported upstream here: http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 COMMENT many incorrect-fsf-address errors removed here as post is too long. palo.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 13) palo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1.4/palo-5.1.4.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found COMMENT: As noted above, .tgz not available from upstream, but expected by packaging guidelines. Upstream provides source in a set of folders. .tgz is provided by packager. URL minus filename is the link to the upstream source code. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 563 errors, 15 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: palo-debuginfo-5.1.4-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/palo-5.1.4/Library/Exceptions/CommitException.cpp COMMENT: As noted above, issue reported upstream here: http://forum.jedox.com/index.php/Thread/4602-Packaging-Palo-Server-for-Fedora/?postID=18974#post18974 COMMENT many incorrect-fsf-address errors removed here as post is too long. palo.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 typeinfo for palo::Task COMMENT many undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings removed here as post is too long. palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo/Data palo COMMENT: for security reasons, uid set to the palo daemon's user 'palo' palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo/Data palo COMMENT: for security reasons, gid set to the palo daemon's group 'palo', to avoid using root palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.0 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so palo palo.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so COMMENT: as noted above, /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so links to libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/palo palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/palo palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so.5.1.4 palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/bin/palo palo palo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/bin/palo palo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 563 errors, 73 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/myk/1209166-palo/srpm/palo.spec 2015-11-07 12:02:37.990565731 +0800 +++ /home/myk/1209166-palo/srpm-unpacked/palo.spec 2015-11-06 22:00:32.000000000 +0800 @@ -11,5 +11,5 @@ Source2: palo.te Source3: palo.fc -Source4: palo.1 +Source4: palo.1 Patch0: palo-5.1.4-cmake.patch #Provide a systemd unit to start palo on boot: not provide by source tree Requires -------- palo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): palo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(palo) libboost_regex.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhttps.palo.so.0()(64bit) libicui18n.so.54()(64bit) libicuuc.so.54()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) selinux-policy shadow-utils Provides -------- palo-debuginfo: palo-debuginfo palo-debuginfo(x86-64) palo: config(palo) libhttps.palo.so.0()(64bit) palo palo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- palo: /usr/lib64/libhttps.palo.so Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1209166 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.