Fedora Merge Review: prelink http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/prelink/ Initial Owner: jakub
rpmlint output: prelink.src: W: no-url-tag prelink.src:215: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:337: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:364: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:384: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:540: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:630: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install prelink.x86_64: W: no-url-tag prelink.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/sbin/prelink prelink.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.prelink prelink.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/prelink prelink-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings. - Fix the above. ** - I'd move the definition %define date 20090925 to the top of the spec file, change the %define to %global and add it also to the Release field, i.e. Release: 3.%{date}%{?dist} - Modernize obsolete BuildRoot to BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) - Move tests to %check phase. - Don't use %makeinstall, it's deprecated. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used - Change mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/rpm cp -a %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir} mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/{sysconfig,cron.daily,prelink.conf.d} cp -a %{SOURCE3} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/cron.daily/prelink cp -a %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/prelink chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/cron.daily/prelink chmod 644 %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/{sysconfig/prelink,prelink.conf} to install -D -p -m 644 %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/prelink.conf install -D -p -m 755 %{SOURCE3} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/cron.daily/prelink install -D -p -m 644 %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/prelink install -D -p -m 644 %{SOURCE5} %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/rpm/macros.prelink where the contents of cat > << EOF has been placed in SOURCE5. - Drop the %attr lines from %files, as they are unnecessary (default permissions).
- Change %{_prefix}/sbin/prelink %{_prefix}/bin/execstack to %{_sbindir}/prelink %{_bindir}/execstack *** MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK - Source URL gives 404. MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK - Drop the unnecessary %attr lines as instructed above. MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Add AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, NEWS, README, THANKS and TODO to %doc. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. NEEDSWORK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
rpmlint currently stands at: prelink.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executants prelink.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US relocations -> relocation, relocation's, revocations prelink.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, runtish prelink.src: W: no-url-tag prelink.src:259: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:381: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:408: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:428: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:584: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src:674: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sysconfdir} prelink.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install prelink.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://people.redhat.com/jakub/prelink/prelink-20100714.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found prelink.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executants prelink.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US relocations -> relocation, relocation's, revocations prelink.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, runtish prelink.x86_64: W: no-url-tag prelink.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/sbin/prelink prelink.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.prelink prelink.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/prelink prelink-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 19 warnings. after fixes (patch in next comment): prelink.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executants prelink.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US relocations -> relocation, relocation's, revocations prelink.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, runtish prelink.x86_64: W: no-url-tag prelink.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/sbin/prelink prelink.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.prelink prelink.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/prelink prelink-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag prelink.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executants prelink.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US relocations -> relocation, relocation's, revocations prelink.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, runtish prelink.src: W: no-url-tag prelink.src:36: W: macro-in-comment %{makeinstall} prelink.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install prelink.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://people.redhat.com/jakub/prelink/prelink-20100714.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings. These are OK except for the missing URL tag and invalid source0.
Created attachment 439518 [details] Patch against rawhide spec
Created attachment 439519 [details] Patch against rawhide spec
Ugh, chromium messed up on me. The correct patch is in comment #5. What I have done in the patch is: - modernized buildroot tag (you can as well remove it altogether, if you like) - moved testing to %check - made the %install section a bit clearer (if you don't this changes, just scrap it) - added missing documentation to %doc - switched to using %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir} macros - fixed macros in comments. Since the makefile is missing the DESTDIR target, looks like makeinstall needs to be used for now. However, as you are upstream, I'm sure you could fix this in a jiffy. What still needs to be done is the source URL - the "we are upstream" exception was removed from the Packaging Guidelines a while ago. Please ask for a project for prelink on fedorahosted.org and make the stuff available there. Once you have done this I can safely approve this review. PS. Maybe you'll want to add license headers to the test suite, too.
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.