https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 Vladisalv Kazakov <vpackager(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vpackager(a)gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Vladisalv Kazakov <vpackager(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hello. Thanks for bringing your package to Fedora! I will make a couple of comments on your spec while you wait for a actual reviewer. It's better to start versioning your libraries. As the upstream maintainer you can do that. Please, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so... Release: tag starting with 1 (never 0). What about other arches? Crash supports other arches too. As stated in Packaging Guidlines, "Fedora packagers should make every effort to support all primary architectures". All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines. You need at least gcc. Whenever possible, invocations of make should be done as %make_build. The %defattr directive in the %files list SHOULD ONLY be used when setting a non-default value, or to reset to the default value after having set a non-default value. It's more license than doc, so you can use %license here. You can set REAMDE as %doc for example. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 d.hatayama(a)fujitsu.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 --- Comment #5 from d.hatayama(a)fujitsu.com --- Vladislav, (In reply to d.hatayama from comment #4) I overlooked the following sentence saying the version is not needed for plugins. In cases where upstream ships unversioned .so library (so this is not needed for plugins, drivers, etc.), the packager MUST try to convince upstream to start versioning it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is, gcore.so provided by crash-gcore-command is a plugin, so I think there is no need to do this here. This is same for trace.so provided by crash-trace-command in BZ#1919349. On the other hand, rpmlint shows warning if solib has no soname, so I'll add soname in the upstream. Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dominik(a)greysector.net --- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; --- Please use %make_build instead of plain `make' in %build unless you have a good reason. Please use install -dm755 instead of `mkdir -p' in %install. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 Nathan Scott <nathans(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nathans(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |nathans(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 Nathan Scott <nathans(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |needinfo?(d.hatayama@fujits | |u.com) --- Comment #10 from Nathan Scott <nathans(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi Hatayama, I've completed the first round of 'formal' review now. In addition to the docs topic discussed earlier (mentioned below in the review re %doc files, up to you whether you want to include that README) there's one other small issue worth fixing, i.e. No package seems to own the crash/extensions directory? $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/crash file /usr/lib64/crash is not owned by any package You can add ownership of these to your new package (it is OK if multiple packages own these directories too BTW - although ideally 'crash' itself would have provided them I guess) - by adding the following to %files .. %dir %{_libdir}/crash %dir %{_libdir}/crash/extensions Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. (gcore.so is a crash plugin, not intended for general developers use) [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [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/crash/extensions, /usr/lib64/crash [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/crash, /usr/lib64/crash/extensions [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: crash-gcore-command-1.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm crash-gcore-command-debuginfo-1.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm crash-gcore-command-debugsource-1.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm crash-gcore-command-1.6.2-1.fc33.src.rpm crash-gcore-command.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: crash-gcore-command-debuginfo-1.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- crash-gcore-command.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- crash-gcore-command: /usr/lib64/crash/extensions/gcore.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fujitsu/crash-gcore/archive/v1.6.2/crash-gcore-command... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 11a804b64c7161859ac81e5d157dc5f6075255a4cc761064a8d84b96fefe1b8e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 11a804b64c7161859ac81e5d157dc5f6075255a4cc761064a8d84b96fefe1b8e Requires -------- crash-gcore-command (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): crash libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) crash-gcore-command-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): crash-gcore-command-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- crash-gcore-command: crash-gcore-command crash-gcore-command(x86-64) crash-gcore-command-debuginfo: crash-gcore-command-debuginfo crash-gcore-command-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) crash-gcore-command-debugsource: crash-gcore-command-debugsource crash-gcore-command-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -c -p -n crash-gcore-command Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Python, Java, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 Nathan Scott <nathans(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Nathan Scott <nathans(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Looks good! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-02-21 09:53:10 --- Comment #14 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- Package is available in repositories, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347