Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils-2.25-1.git68b975a.fc23.src.rpm Description: Binutils is a collection of binary utilities, including ar (for creating, modifying and extracting from archives), as (a family of GNU assemblers), gprof (for displaying call graph profile data), ld (the GNU linker), nm (for listing symbols from object files), objcopy (for copying and translating object files), objdump (for displaying information from object files), ranlib (for generating an index for the contents of an archive), readelf (for displaying detailed information about binary files), size (for listing the section sizes of an object or archive file), strings (for listing printable strings from files), strip (for discarding symbols), and addr2line (for converting addresses to file and line). Fedora Account System Username: spot Chromium needs a nacl cross toolchain built for "nacl-arm". This is the binutils part.
SPEC URL:https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-1.gitcde986c.fc23.src.rpm
If that's okay I'll try to do a review of the package manually. Since my system is 32-bit. Regards
gil's scratch build of nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-1.gitcde986c.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11805322
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: nacl-arm-binutils. Illegal package name: nacl-arm-binutils. Does not provide -static: nacl-arm-binutils. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries - 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. Note: Cannot find copying.c in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: Package contains no static executables. [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: [!]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/arm-nacl, /usr/lib64 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/arm-nacl, /usr/lib64 /usr/arm-nacl [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [?]: 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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: 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. [?]: 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 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [!]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nacl- arm-binutils-debuginfo [z]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define binutils_target %{_target_platform}, %define isnative 1, %define enable_shared 1, %define cross %{binutils_target}-, %define isnative 0, %define enable_shared 0, %define __debug_install_post : > %{_builddir}/%{?buildsubdir}/debugfiles.list, %define debug_package %{nil}, %define run_testsuite 0%{?_with_testsuite:1}, %define run_testsuite 0%{!?_without_testsuite:1}, %define run_testsuite 0, %define _gnu %{nil}, %define enable_shared 0 [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Buildroot is not present [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8980480 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- ERROR: Cannot build target x86_64 on arch i686, because it is not listed in legal_host_arches ('x86_64',) Rpmlint ------- Checking: nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-1.gitcde986c.fc24.x86_64.rpm nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo-2.25.2-1.gitcde986c.fc24.x86_64.rpm nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-1.gitcde986c.fc24.src.rpm nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/objcopy /usr/bin/arm-nacl-objcopy nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-strip /usr/arm-nacl/bin/strip nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ar /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ar nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ranlib /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ranlib nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld.bfd nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/as /usr/bin/arm-nacl-as nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/arm-nacl-run.1.gz 19: warning: macro `"' not defined nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld.bfd nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/objdump /usr/bin/arm-nacl-objdump nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/nm /usr/bin/arm-nacl-nm nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libarm-nacl-sim.a nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary arm-nacl-ld.bfd nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-nacl nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.h nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.c nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.c nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.h nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gprof -> prof, g prof, Prof nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ld -> ls, l, d nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nm -> NM, mm, n nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objcopy -> obj copy, obj-copy, copybook nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objdump -> obj dump, obj-dump, dumpy nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ranlib -> ran lib, ran-lib, librarian nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readelf -> read elf, read-elf, reader nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: invalid-url Source0: nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 24 warnings. Requires -------- nacl-arm-binutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nacl-arm-binutils: nacl-arm-binutils nacl-arm-binutils(x86-64) nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo: nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -vpn nacl-arm-binutils -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
issues: - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: nacl-arm-binutils. Illegal package name: nacl-arm-binutils. Does not provide -static: nacl-arm-binutils. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries - 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. Note: Cannot find copying.c in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.h nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.c nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.c nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.h Please, report the problem to upstream https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/arm-nacl, /usr/lib64 /usr/arm-nacl [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define binutils_target %{_target_platform}, %define isnative 1, %define enable_shared 1, %define cross %{binutils_target}-, %define isnative 0, %define enable_shared 0, %define __debug_install_post : > %{_builddir}/%{?buildsubdir}/debugfiles.list, %define debug_package %{nil}, %define run_testsuite 0%{?_with_testsuite:1}, %define run_testsuite 0%{!?_without_testsuite:1}, %define run_testsuite 0, %define _gnu %{nil}, %define enable_shared 0
* Mon Dec 7 2015 Tom Callaway <spot@fedoraproject.org> - 2.25.2-2.gitcde986c - add Provides: nacl-arm-binutils-static - remove obsolete clean section - fix license tag - add license files to package - convert defines to global - own /usr/arm-nacl directory New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc23.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils.spec
gil's scratch build of nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12101482
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Manual review - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: nacl-arm-binutils. Illegal package name: nacl-arm-binutils. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries - 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. Note: Cannot find copying.c in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text IGNORE installed: %license COPYING3 COPYING3.LIB COPYING.NEWLIB ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: Package contains no static executables. [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: [-]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [-]: 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. [?]: 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 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 nacl- arm-binutils-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. install -m 644 bfd/libbfd.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir} install -m 644 libiberty/libiberty.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir} install -m 644 include/libiberty.h %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/include install -m 644 opcodes/libopcodes.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir} Please, use install -pm ... [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _gnu %{nil}, %define enable_shared 0 [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9072640 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- ERROR: Cannot build target x86_64 on arch i686, because it is not listed in legal_host_arches ('x86_64',) Rpmlint ------- Checking: nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc24.x86_64.rpm nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc24.x86_64.rpm nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc24.src.rpm nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ar /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ar nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-objdump /usr/arm-nacl/bin/objdump nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libarm-nacl-sim.a nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/arm-nacl-run.1.gz 19: warning: macro `"' not defined nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/objcopy /usr/bin/arm-nacl-objcopy nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld.bfd nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ranlib /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ranlib nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/as /usr/bin/arm-nacl-as nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/strip /usr/bin/arm-nacl-strip nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-nm /usr/arm-nacl/bin/nm nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld.bfd nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary arm-nacl-ld.bfd nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-nacl nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.h nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.c nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.h nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.c nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gprof -> prof, g prof, Prof nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ld -> ls, l, d nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nm -> NM, mm, n nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objcopy -> obj copy, obj-copy, copybook nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objdump -> obj dump, obj-dump, dumpy nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ranlib -> ran lib, ran-lib, librarian nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readelf -> read elf, read-elf, reader nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: invalid-url Source0: nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 24 warnings. Requires -------- nacl-arm-binutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nacl-arm-binutils: nacl-arm-binutils nacl-arm-binutils(x86-64) nacl-arm-binutils-static nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo: nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vpn nacl-arm-binutils -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
NON blocking issues: [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. install -m 644 bfd/libbfd.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir} install -m 644 libiberty/libiberty.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir} install -m 644 include/libiberty.h %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/include install -m 644 opcodes/libopcodes.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir} Please, use install -pm ... [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _gnu %{nil}, %define enable_shared 0 Please, fix before import. Approved
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nacl-arm-binutils
nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-398c2c7afa
nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.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 nacl-arm-binutils' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9562c56720
nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.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 nacl-arm-binutils' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-398c2c7afa
nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.