Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libosmocore/libosmocore.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libosmocore/libosmocore-0.9.0-1.20151109git916423ef.fc22.src.rpm Description: A collection of common code used in various sub-projects inside the Osmocom family of projects (OsmocomBB, OpenBSC, ...). Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad Bad FSF address and exit in library reported upstream.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: sed findutils See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [ ]: 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 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "AGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD GPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 172 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/1279527-libosmocore/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/libosmocore [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libosmocore [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/osmocom(libosmo- dsp-devel) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libosmocore-doc , libosmocore-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libosmocore-0.9.0-1.20151109git916423ef.fc23.x86_64.rpm libosmocore-devel-0.9.0-1.20151109git916423ef.fc23.x86_64.rpm libosmocore-doc-0.9.0-1.20151109git916423ef.fc23.noarch.rpm libosmocore-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.20151109git916423ef.fc23.x86_64.rpm libosmocore-0.9.0-1.20151109git916423ef.fc23.src.rpm libosmocore.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 exit.5 libosmocore.x86_64: W: no-documentation libosmocore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osmo-auc-gen libosmocore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osmo-arfcn libosmocore-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libosmocore-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/vty/buffer.h libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/vty/vector.h libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/core/linuxrbtree.h libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/vty/command.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/vector.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/buffer.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/command.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/rbtree.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/core/linuxrbtree.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/select.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/buffer.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/command.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/vector.h libosmocore.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libosmocore-0.9.0-20151109git916423ef.tar.bz2 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libosmocore-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.20151109git916423ef.fc23.x86_64.rpm libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/vector.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/select.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/core/linuxrbtree.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/command.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/rbtree.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/command.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/buffer.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/vector.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/buffer.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/command.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/core/linuxrbtree.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/rbtree.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/vector.h libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/command.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/buffer.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/vty/vector.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/src/select.c libosmocore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libosmocore-0.9.0/include/osmocom/vty/buffer.h libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmocodec.so.0.0.0 libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmoctrl.so.0.0.0 libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmocore.so.6.0.0 libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4(LIBOSMOGB_1.0)(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 exit.5 libosmocore.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 libosmocore.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 bssgp_prim_cb libosmocore.x86_64: W: no-documentation libosmocore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osmo-arfcn libosmocore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osmo-auc-gen libosmocore-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libosmocore-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/vty/vector.h libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/vty/command.h libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/core/linuxrbtree.h libosmocore-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/osmocom/vty/buffer.h 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 17 warnings. Requires -------- libosmocore-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libosmocore libosmocore-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libosmocore (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) libpcsclite.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libosmocore-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore(x86-64) libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) Provides -------- libosmocore-doc: libosmocore-doc libosmocore-debuginfo: libosmocore-debuginfo libosmocore-debuginfo(x86-64) libosmocore: libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore libosmocore(x86-64) libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) libosmogb.so.4(LIBOSMOGB_1.0)(64bit) libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) libosmocore-devel: libosmocore-devel libosmocore-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libosmocodec) pkgconfig(libosmocore) pkgconfig(libosmoctrl) pkgconfig(libosmogb) pkgconfig(libosmogsm) pkgconfig(libosmovty) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1279527 Buildroot used: fedora-23-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
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "AGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD GPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 172 files have unknown license. Some tests are under different license than the rest of the library: libosmocore-0.9.0/tests/fr/fr_test.c (AGPLv3+) libosmocore-0.9.0/tests/strrb/strrb_test.c (GPLv3+) I'm not sure if that's a reason to list them in the specfile, though. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libosmocore [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/osmocom(libosmo- dsp-devel) Are these owned by a required package? If not, they should be owned by libosmocore. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libosmocore-doc , libosmocore-debuginfo I believe this is missing. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are tests in the package. Are they not run on purpose? Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmocodec.so.0.0.0 libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmoctrl.so.0.0.0 libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmocore.so.6.0.0 libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4(LIBOSMOGB_1.0)(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) I have no idea if these are valid complaints or fedora-review just had a brain-fart... libosmocore.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 This is "fixed" in the spec, but rpmlint still complains for some reason. libosmocore.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 bssgp_prim_cb Is the library actually usable without this?
(In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #2) Thanks for the review. New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libosmocore/libosmocore.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libosmocore/libosmocore-0.9.0-2.20151109git916423ef.fc22.src.rpm > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or > generated", "AGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD GPL > (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No > copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 172 files have unknown > license. > > Some tests are under different license than the rest of the library: > > libosmocore-0.9.0/tests/fr/fr_test.c (AGPLv3+) > libosmocore-0.9.0/tests/strrb/strrb_test.c (GPLv3+) > > I'm not sure if that's a reason to list them in the specfile, though. > Good catch, it could be resolved (probably) by upgrading the package to GPLv3+ or by removing the tests under question. They are all FSF free, so keeping them there and extending the resulting license. > > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libosmocore Fixed. > [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/osmocom(libosmo- > dsp-devel) > > Are these owned by a required package? If not, they should be owned by > libosmocore. > A bit tricky - it seems osmocom puts header files for all their projects under osmocom and libosmo-dsp was packed first, thus providing this directory. This could be handled better way, but for now I required the libosmo-dsp-devel package to just provide this directory. > > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > libosmocore-doc , libosmocore-debuginfo > > I believe this is missing. > It is generated doc, there could be (or could appear anytime later) some arch specific details, thus added the flag. > > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > There are tests in the package. Are they not run on purpose? > Added and run. > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmocodec.so.0.0.0 libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmoctrl.so.0.0.0 libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmocore.so.6.0.0 libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4(LIBOSMOGB_1.0)(64bit) > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) > > I have no idea if these are valid complaints or fedora-review just had a > brain-fart... > I can't reproduce these, no idea why they were flagged as private shared objects. The shared objects are public and they are in the right location. Could you provide more details regarding this? > libosmocore.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > > This is "fixed" in the spec, but rpmlint still complains for some reason. > Filled gcc bug 1287805 > libosmocore.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol > /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 bssgp_prim_cb > > Is the library actually usable without this? Yes, it is. The bssgp_prim_cb is callback function that must be defined by the consumer, see e.g. gprs_ns_test.c.
(In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #1) > Issues: > ======= > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: sed findutils > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Sorry, I haven't noticed this. IIRC there was an exception list in the guidelines, but it seems it was removed somewhere in the past, the ancher in the link above doesn't exist. But currently there is the following text (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires_2): > It is important that your package list all necessary build dependencies > using the BuildRequires tag. You may assume that enough of an environment > exists for RPM to function and execute basic shell scripts, but you should not > assume any other packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought > into the buildroot by the build system may change over time. So I am adding all packages to the buildrequires of my new packages even if the sed was previously listed there.
New round of the review. I'm just going to pick the non-addressed / new issues. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libosmocore-debuginfo This looks like a bug in fedora-review/rpm to me... Or am I missing something? (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > (In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #2) > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > > ---------------------------- > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmocodec.so.0.0.0 libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmoctrl.so.0.0.0 libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmocore.so.6.0.0 libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4(LIBOSMOGB_1.0)(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) > > > > I have no idea if these are valid complaints or fedora-review just had a > > brain-fart... > > > I can't reproduce these, no idea why they were flagged as private shared > objects. The shared objects are public and they are in the right location. > Could you provide more details regarding this? Well, I saw those errors in the review log. I can't see them in the new version, so I blame it on the fedora-review tool:) All issues appear to have been addressed. Approving.
(In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #5) Thanks. > New round of the review. I'm just going to pick the non-addressed / new > issues. > > > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > libosmocore-debuginfo > > This looks like a bug in fedora-review/rpm to me... Or am I missing > something? > Or maybe some RPM magic. This is autogenerated by rpmbuild (AFAIK) and it should be arch dependant. But the deps aren't in debuginfo (as fedora review pointed out), but maybe they needn't be there. It seems to be the same for other debuginfo packages as well (f21). I will try to open rpm ticket to sort this out.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #6) > (In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #5) > Thanks. > > > New round of the review. I'm just going to pick the non-addressed / new > > issues. > > > > > > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > > libosmocore-debuginfo > > > > This looks like a bug in fedora-review/rpm to me... Or am I missing > > something? > > > Or maybe some RPM magic. This is autogenerated by rpmbuild (AFAIK) and it > should be arch dependant. But the deps aren't in debuginfo (as fedora review > pointed out), but maybe they needn't be there. It seems to be the same for > other debuginfo packages as well (f21). I will try to open rpm ticket to > sort this out. Seen on f22, created rpm bug 1289160.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libosmocore
libosmocore-0.9.0-2.20151109git916423ef.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2cd6828e75
libosmocore-0.9.0-2.20151109git916423ef.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-26c727da4a
libosmocore-0.9.0-2.20151109git916423ef.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 libosmocore' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2cd6828e75
libosmocore-0.9.0-2.20151109git916423ef.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 libosmocore' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-26c727da4a
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1619da728a
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f2da169de3
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-da529ef26f
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update libosmocore' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-da529ef26f
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.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 libosmocore' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1619da728a
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.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 libosmocore' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f2da169de3
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libosmocore-0.9.0-3.20151109git916423ef.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.