Bug 1253917 - False private-shared-object-provides warning during fedora-review
Summary: False private-shared-object-provides warning during fedora-review
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpmlint
Version: 22
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-08-15 16:09 UTC by Dave Johansen
Modified: 2016-02-01 06:33 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rpmlint-1.8-4.fc23 rpmlint-1.8-4.fc22
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-12-04 19:19:52 UTC
Type: Bug


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dave Johansen 2015-08-15 16:09:03 UTC
Description of problem:
rpmlint is outputting a private-shared-object-provides during fedora-review, but I believe that this is a false warning.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279#c7 and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-July/010855.html

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.7

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1216279

Actual results:
Warning is output.

Expected results:
Warning should not be output.

Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2015-08-16 07:50:37 UTC
As I wrote in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-August/010904.html:

| I think enough investigation is finding out whether it happens with plain
| rpmlint or only with fedora-review and then choose the component to report
| against as appropriate.

This report is against rpmlint but the reproducer is written using fedora-review. And the pointer to the review this occurred with is to a x86_64 package review but the reproducer uses an i686 root.

I downloaded https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/cppformat_1.1.0/cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm and built it locally using mock for rawhide x86_64, and running rpmlint from rpmlint-1.7-1.fc22.noarch on x86_64 F22 does not output that 

$ /usr/bin/rpmlint ./cppformat-*x86_64.rpm
cppformat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cppformat-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cppformat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Nor does it when the cppformat package is installed:
$ /usr/bin/rpmlint cppformat
cppformat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Please provide a reproducer using plain rpmlint, and more details about the environment. If it involves binary rpms, also post the rpms for examination somewhere.

Comment 2 Dave Johansen 2015-08-18 21:27:47 UTC
I am not familiar enough with rpmlint and fedora-review to understand why it's only happening when done in fedora-review, so I moved it to fedora-review in hopes that someone one on that end of things can figure what the source of the problem is.

Comment 3 Alec Leamas 2015-11-26 17:32:20 UTC
Hm... Testing rpmlint in the buildroot after installing the new cppformat package:

$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --shell
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpmlint --version
rpmlint version 1.8 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpm -q cppformat
cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc24.x86_64
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpmlint cppformat
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
cppformat.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libformat.so.1.1.0 libformat.so.1()(64bit)
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3#
/usr/lib64/libformat.so.1.1.0 

I. e., fedora-review does nothing but reflects the output from mock. This is seemingly not a fedora-review bug.

What I cannot understand is why rpmlint states that /usr/lib64/libformat.so... is in a private path. After all, /usr/lib64 is well-known ld.so path, right?

Oddities:

mock-chroot>sh-4.3# ls /usr/bin/python*
/usr/bin/python3  /usr/bin/python3.5  /usr/bin/python3.5m

<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# ls /etc/ld.so.conf.d
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# 

Sorry, but unless this bug is moved to another component like rpmlint I will close it as not-a-bug.

Comment 4 Alec Leamas 2015-11-26 18:30:16 UTC
Admittedly, I was too lazy. Complete reproducer:

$ wget  https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/cppformat_1.1.0/cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
$ rpmbuild --rebuild cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --init
$ mock -r  fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --install rpmlint
$ mock -r  fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --install /home/al/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
$ mock -r  fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --shell
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpmlint cppformat
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
cppformat.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libformat.so.1.1.0 libformat.so.1()(64bit)
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# logout

Comment 5 Ville Skyttä 2015-11-27 08:09:06 UTC
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #4)
> Admittedly, I was too lazy. Complete reproducer:

Thanks. See bug 1243292 comment 10.

Comment 6 Alec Leamas 2015-11-27 10:13:54 UTC
OK, the "sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory" message seems to be taken care of in bug #1243292.

Now, here is still the warning "W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libformat.so...". This basically says that the provided library libformat.so doesn't live in a path known by ld.so, right? If so, isn't this nonsense?

Comment 7 Ville Skyttä 2015-11-27 10:49:18 UTC
Yep, now that I could reproduce it, that's fixed in rpmlint upstream: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/commit/4e8657f47fb15b7a871b88054d15ea1141dd55b3

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-11-30 19:51:49 UTC
rpmlint-1.8-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b4da76610b

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-11-30 19:51:50 UTC
rpmlint-1.8-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1153251876

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-11-30 19:52:01 UTC
rpmlint-1.8-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-037f1f4db5

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-12-01 22:30:57 UTC
rpmlint-1.8-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpmlint'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1153251876

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2015-12-03 16:03:27 UTC
rpmlint-1.8-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpmlint'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-037f1f4db5

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-12-04 19:19:44 UTC
rpmlint-1.8-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2016-02-01 06:33:38 UTC
rpmlint-1.8-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.