Spec URL: https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/liborc.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6910/76006910/liborc-1.6.6-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: ORC is a self-describing type-aware columnar file format designed for Hadoop workloads. Fedora Account System Username: kkeithle
this is a prerequisite, dependency for Apache arrow which I will also be packaging after this. There are newer versions of Apache orc, but this is the version that is currently bundled in the Apache arrow src rpms associated with the rpms for CentOS and RHEL at https://arrow.apache.org/install/
There is already: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/orc While there is no relation, wouldn't the liborc confuse with orc? Or possibly collide (in the future). It certainly provides `liborc-0.4.so.0()(64bit)`, not sure what is the soname of this package.
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > There is already: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/orc > > While there is no relation, wouldn't the liborc confuse with orc? I don't see how. orc does not have a liborc subpackage, and once or if (my) liborc package exists it they would not be able to add one, right? > Or > possibly collide (in the future). It certainly provides > `liborc-0.4.so.0()(64bit)`, not sure what is the soname of this package. Libraries: * liborc-0.4 != liborc. I.e. liborc-0.4.so != liborc.so, liborc-0.4.a != liborc.a and their SO_NAMEs: * liborc-0.4.so.1 != liborc.so.1 There is no collision.
And yes, I checked when I started and found orc, and I considered the libraries and SO_NAMEs. ;-)
(In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #3) > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > > There is already: > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/orc > > > > While there is no relation, wouldn't the liborc confuse with orc? > > I don't see how. orc does not have a liborc subpackage, and once or if (my) > liborc package exists it they would not be able to add one, right? I think there won't be anything stopping anybody to add `liborc` subpackage, unless they happen to know about `liborc` package. > > Or > > possibly collide (in the future). It certainly provides > > `liborc-0.4.so.0()(64bit)`, not sure what is the soname of this package. > > Libraries: > * liborc-0.4 != liborc. I.e. liborc-0.4.so != liborc.so, liborc-0.4.a != > liborc.a > > and their SO_NAMEs: > * liborc-0.4.so.1 != liborc.so.1 > > There is no collision. Probably not ATM. (In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #4) > And yes, I checked when I started and found orc, and I considered the > libraries and SO_NAMEs. ;-) Thx for pointing this out. I was not sure, therefore I thought it might be good idea to raise this concern just in case.
Hi, I just came across this package review. Since I saw BUILD_JAVA is off on the spec file, is there any usage of BR maven? Also, I'd recommend you use the source from this link for apache: https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.7.0/ and verify its signatures. in this case: Source0: https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.7.0/orc-1.7.0.tar.gz Source1: https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.7.0/orc-1.7.0.tar.gz.asc Source2: https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/KEYS … BuildRequires: gnupg2 … %prep %{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}' --data='%{SOURCE0}'
(In reply to Didik Supriadi from comment #6) > Hi, > I just came across this package review. > > Since I saw BUILD_JAVA is off on the spec file, is there any usage of BR > maven? > I have removed the BR for maven. > Also, I'd recommend you use the source from this link for apache: > https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.7.0/ > and verify its signatures. in this case: > Source0: https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.7.0/orc-1.7.0.tar.gz I'm not building a later version at this time. I explained this in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005989#c1 > Source1: https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.7.0/orc-1.7.0.tar.gz.asc > Source2: https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/KEYS > … > BuildRequires: gnupg2 > … > %prep > %{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}' > --data='%{SOURCE0}' Except it doesn't work due to a bad signature in the KEYS file. See https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6218/76426218/build.log
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #5) > (In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #3) > > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > > > There is already: > > > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/orc > > > > > > While there is no relation, wouldn't the liborc confuse with orc? > > > > I don't see how. orc does not have a liborc subpackage, and once or if (my) > > liborc package exists it they would not be able to add one, right? > > > I think there won't be anything stopping anybody to add `liborc` subpackage, > unless they happen to know about `liborc` package. > I can't stop people from making mistakes in the future. You seem to want something. I'm not in the business of guessing what it is. Can you please be specific about what you want so that I can consider it? > > > > Or > > > possibly collide (in the future). It certainly provides > > > `liborc-0.4.so.0()(64bit)`, not sure what is the soname of this package. > > > > Libraries: > > * liborc-0.4 != liborc. I.e. liborc-0.4.so != liborc.so, liborc-0.4.a != > > liborc.a > > > > and their SO_NAMEs: > > * liborc-0.4.so.1 != liborc.so.1 > > > > There is no collision. > > Probably not ATM. > > > (In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #4) > > And yes, I checked when I started and found orc, and I considered the > > libraries and SO_NAMEs. ;-) > > Thx for pointing this out. I was not sure, therefore I thought it might be > good idea to raise this concern just in case.
So, the SRPM is no longer here, can you upload it to fedorapeople, so fedora-review can download it ?
(In reply to Michael S. from comment #9) > So, the SRPM is no longer here, can you upload it to fedorapeople, so > fedora-review can download it ? Spec URL: https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/liborc.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2041/81452041/liborc-1.6.6-1.fc36.src.rpm or https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/liborc-1.6.6-1.fc36.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fedora/2005989-liborc/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Directory %{_libdir}/cmake/orc/ is unowned (same for /usr/include/orc) - Sources need to be verified with gpgverify - Latest version is 1.7.2 - Patch should be sent upstream (or have a comment) - debuginfo is disabled, should be explained why - package is 64 bits only, but that's a upstream issue, just mentioning for the record ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: [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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 1223 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2005989-liborc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/orc, /usr/include/orc [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/orc, /usr/include/orc [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. [!]: 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 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 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: 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: [-]: 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 liborc1 , liborc-devel [-]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/2005989-liborc/srpm- unpacked/liborc.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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: liborc1-1.6.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm liborc-devel-1.6.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm liborc-1.6.6-1.fc36.src.rpm liborc1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liborc -> liberator liborc1.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary liborc1.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/liborc.so.1.6.6 liborc-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on liborc/liborc-libs/libliborc liborc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liborc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pushdown -> push down, push-down, splashdown liborc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US structs -> struts, destructs, obstructs liborc.src: W: file-size-mismatch orc-1.6.6.tar.gz = 13939853, https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.6.6/orc-1.6.6.tar.gz = 14048870 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.6.6/orc-1.6.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a92b3eaad1d8b88a18cee41058feb34eb43d919df363e0b74a0b857724e4ba0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93d2e5f7c9f76ea5cdf29073c73a00a37c54281a5c02bcc6395f1cf521ea246c diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- liborc1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.30()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) liborc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) liborc.so.1()(64bit) liborc1(x86-64) Provides -------- liborc1: liborc.so.1()(64bit) liborc1 liborc1(x86-64) liborc-devel: cmake(orc) liborc-devel liborc-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2005989 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
thanks for reviewing. tl;dnr. Updated .spec and src.rpm at https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/liborc-20220131/ see below for individual responses inline. (In reply to Michael S. from comment #11) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/fedora/2005989-liborc/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > > - Directory %{_libdir}/cmake/orc/ is unowned (same for /usr/include/orc) > > - Sources need to be verified with gpgverify > > - Latest version is 1.7.2 > > - Patch should be sent upstream (or have a comment) > > - debuginfo is disabled, should be explained why > > - package is 64 bits only, but that's a upstream issue, just mentioning for > the record > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. > [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: > [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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", > "Apache License 2.0". 1223 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2005989-liborc/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/orc, /usr/include/orc > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/orc, > /usr/include/orc fixed > [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. > [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. fixed > [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. package does not build on 32-bit arches. There is a big comment addressing that at lines 9-12 of the .spec > [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 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > [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]: 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: > [-]: 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 liborc1 > , liborc-devel > [-]: Package functions as described. > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. ?? I don't understand this. The one patch contains the changes to the source — i.e. the cmake files — necessary to build without also downlloading and building bundled (vendored) dependencies from the downloaded sources. As we know, downloading during a mock build (in koji or otherwise) doesn't work. > [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. > [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. It does. See comment about ExcludeArch > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [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: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/2005989-liborc/srpm- > unpacked/liborc.spec > See: (this test has no URL) ??? > [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: liborc1-1.6.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm > liborc-devel-1.6.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm > liborc-1.6.6-1.fc36.src.rpm > liborc1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liborc -> liberator > liborc1.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary > liborc1.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/liborc.so.1.6.6 > liborc-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on liborc/liborc-libs/libliborc It does have a dependency on liborc1, at line 57 of the .spec. That's the subpackage with liborc.so.* in it. If it's preferable to have the dependency on the parent, wrapper package (liborc) we can do that too. > liborc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > liborc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pushdown -> push down, > push-down, splashdown > liborc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US structs -> struts, > destructs, obstructs > liborc.src: W: file-size-mismatch orc-1.6.6.tar.gz = 13939853, > https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.6.6/orc-1.6.6.tar.gz = 14048870 fixed. Size difference is due to the tarball from the src.rpm in apache's package repo which untars into .../orc-rel-release-1.6.6/*. I have replaced that tarball with the tarball from the apache archive. (Which apart from the dirname has exactly the same contents according to diff -ur ...) > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://archive.apache.org/dist/orc/orc-1.6.6/orc-1.6.6.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 9a92b3eaad1d8b88a18cee41058feb34eb43d919df363e0b74a0b857724e4ba0 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 93d2e5f7c9f76ea5cdf29073c73a00a37c54281a5c02bcc6395f1cf521ea246c > diff -r also reports differences > > > Requires > -------- > liborc1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) > liblz4.so.1()(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > libprotobuf.so.30()(64bit) > libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) > libz.so.1()(64bit) > libzstd.so.1()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > liborc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > cmake-filesystem(x86-64) > liborc.so.1()(64bit) > liborc1(x86-64) > > > > Provides > -------- > liborc1: > liborc.so.1()(64bit) > liborc1 > liborc1(x86-64) > > liborc-devel: > cmake(orc) > liborc-devel > liborc-devel(x86-64) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2005989 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic > Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, > Perl, PHP > Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Kaleb KEITHLEY from comment #12) > > ... > > Rpmlint > > ------- > > Checking: liborc1-1.6.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm > > liborc-devel-1.6.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm > > liborc-1.6.6-1.fc36.src.rpm > > ... > > liborc-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on liborc/liborc-libs/libliborc > > liborc-devel does have a dependency on liborc1, at line 57 of the .spec. That's the > subpackage with liborc.so.* in it. If it's preferable to have the dependency > on the parent, wrapper package (liborc) we can do that too. > And I actually don't get that warning on my f35 box. I do get this though: liborc-devel.x86_64: E: no-library-dependency-on liborc1 /usr/lib64/liborc.so.1 And on f36 I don't get that warning. I tried adding an explicit dependency in liborc1 on liborc and that gave: liborc1.x86_64: W: shlib-fixed-dependency liborc(x86-64) = 1.6.6-1.fc36 in addition to the above error. (so I took it back out.) I tried changing the liborc-devel Requires from: Requires: %{name}1%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} to: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} and on f35 it still gives: liborc-devel.x86_64: E: no-library-dependency-on liborc1 /usr/lib64/liborc.so.1 but on f36 it gives no warnings or errors.
fixed tne liborc-devel.x86_64: E: no-library-dependency-on liborc1 /usr/lib64/liborc.so.1 or liborc-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on liborc/liborc-libs/libliborc new src.rpm and .spec in https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/liborc-20220202/
misc, has Kaleb addressed your comments? We want to move ahead with packaging this in Fedora and EPEL to avoid bundling it in Ceph.
So, there is still the question of latest version, but I think that's not a big problem, it will be updated sooner or later. The gpg verification is a nice to have but that's not blocking (and I can't explain how it work) The comment for the patch would be nice, or at least, making sure upstream know about it, but that's again, a nice to have, not going to block on that. So gonna approve, just need to remember how to do that (sorry it took so long :/)
(In reply to Michael S. from comment #16) > So, there is still the question of latest version, but I think that's not a > big problem, it will be updated sooner or later. > > The gpg verification is a nice to have but that's not blocking (and I can't > explain how it work) The comment for the patch would be nice, or at least, > making sure upstream know about it, but that's again, a nice to have, not > going to block on that. > > So gonna approve, just need to remember how to do that (sorry it took so > long :/) I think you did :-) And now I file a NewRepo ticket and cite this BZ.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liborc