[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- OK, great, approved. But can you change the Require: jpackage-utils to javapackages-tools - the Java packaging guidelines was updated yesterday. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #15 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com --- I agree. Sorry, moved. Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-5.fc23.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #17 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com --- Changed... Jonathan, thank you very much for the 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #13 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #12) Package Review Issues: === - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils The -java package should Require jpackage-utils (which owns /usr/lib/java). See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java Fixed. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You currently have a BR for python-devel - this should be python2-devel. Also, you might consider building a python3 sub-package if that is supported too - Fedora will eventually move to python 3 as the default. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Fixed. I will ask upstream about supporting python3... Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-5.fc23.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- Hmm... You've put the Requires: jpackage-utils in the main package, rather than the -java sub-package. I believe it should be in the -java sub-package. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
The -java package should Require jpackage-utils (which owns
/usr/lib/java). See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
You currently have a BR for python-devel - this should be
python2-devel. Also, you might consider building a python3
sub-package if that is supported too - Fedora will eventually move to
python 3 as the default. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.
[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.
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:
BSD (3 clause), MIT/X11 (BSD like), *No copyright* GPL (v2 or
later), Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 663 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jgu/rpmbuild/1201662-wiredtiger/licensecheck.txt
[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/share/licenses
Need to Require jpackage-utils in the -java package.
/usr/share/licenses is owned by the filsystem package, but I see no
other packages Requiring filesystem, so perhaps this is OK.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/java,
/usr/share/licenses
As above.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
jpackage-utils
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #11 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #9)
Still some rpmlint flagged issues:
(1)
wiredtiger.src:66: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build sed -i -r
s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}| lang/python/Makefile.am
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may
break short circuit builds.
This is because you're doing loads of stuff in %build that should be done in
%prep. All of this should be in %prep:
I am not really sure about this. In all examples of RPM on fedora wiki,
confingure is in %build
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package). I wrong
understood this warning, so the first version was right:
sed -i -r s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}| lang/python/Makefile.am
- should be in %prep and later stuff needs to be in %build.
So this warning is false, because with sed, I am not touching buildroot.
I changed this and BUILDROOT is used with configure. I think this warning
remains...
(3)
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L
A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this
message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files
included in your package.
This is a compiled extension, and so should be under %{python_sitearch},
rather than under %{python_sitelib}. The former is for compiled extension
modules, the latter for pure python (arch independent) modules. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc23.src.rpm
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Marek Skalický from comment #3)
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #1)
Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger
Upstream rpm template -
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/blob/master/dist/package/wiredtiger.
spec
Nonetheless, the name doesn't need to be repeated in the Summary. A data
storage engine would be sufficient, and silence the warning.
wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-
2.5.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
This url is functional... try it.
It is now - but it wasn't earlier - must have been some sort of connectivity
issue. Anyway, confirmed, it is valid.
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
devel and java subpackages requires -libs subpackage, which have the
documentation. Its a normal usage of -devel, to ship .so and .pc files...
The .so should have the executable bit set.
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so
I thought that this library is not for ordinary use. It is used only by .jar
files...
OK, is this a plugin used only by wiredtiger? If so, it should be in a private
directory, rather than on the linker search path.
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings.
Why should python2.7 modules file have exec right? If I try ls -l
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/, scripts there doesn't have exec right
too...
You've misunderstood the rpmlint error message. What it's saying is that these
files have a shebang set at the top, and yet are non-executable. If the files
are not meant to be executable files, you also need to remove the shebang at
the top of the files. A recipe something like this would work (untested):
find %{buildroot}%{python_sitearch}/wiredtiger -name '*.py' \
-exec sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' {} \;
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- Hi Merek, A number of those rpmlint messages need fixes, so I'll wait for an updated package before doing the full 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #4 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-2.fc23.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #3 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #1)
Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger
Upstream rpm template -
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/blob/master/dist/package/wiredtiger.spec
wiredtiger.src:64: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i -r
s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}| lang/python/Makefile.am
OK. Fixed.
wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-
2.5.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
This url is functional... try it.
wiredtiger.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -
lobs, lib, lbs
Fixed. Typo error wiredtiger-libs - wiredtiger-devel
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
devel and java subpackages requires -libs subpackage, which have the
documentation. Its a normal usage of -devel, to ship .so and .pc files...
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so
I thought that this library is not for ordinary use. It is used only by .jar
files...
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings.
Why should python2.7 modules file have exec right? If I try ls -l
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/, scripts there doesn't have exec right
too...
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com ---
Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger
wiredtiger.src:64: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i -r
s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}| lang/python/Makefile.am
wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
wiredtiger.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs - lobs,
lib, lbs
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #8 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com --- Yes I know, sorry. I weren't able to connect fedorapeople... Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-3.fc23.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #6 from Marek Skalický mskal...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #5)
(In reply to Marek Skalický from comment #3)
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #1)
Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger
Upstream rpm template -
https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/blob/master/dist/package/wiredtiger.
spec
Nonetheless, the name doesn't need to be repeated in the Summary. A data
storage engine would be sufficient, and silence the warning.
Fixed.
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
devel and java subpackages requires -libs subpackage, which have the
documentation. Its a normal usage of -devel, to ship .so and .pc files...
The .so should have the executable bit set.
libwiredtiger.so has it... any other?
wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so
I thought that this library is not for ordinary use. It is used only by .jar
files...
OK, is this a plugin used only by wiredtiger? If so, it should be in a
private directory, rather than on the linker search path.
Yes, you are right. I fixed it - guidelines about JNI.
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L
/usr/bin/env
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings.
Why should python2.7 modules file have exec right? If I try ls -l
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/, scripts there doesn't have exec right
too...
You've misunderstood the rpmlint error message. What it's saying is that
these files have a shebang set at the top, and yet are non-executable. If
the files are not meant to be executable files, you also need to remove the
shebang at the top of the files. A recipe something like this would work
(untested):
find %{buildroot}%{python_sitearch}/wiredtiger -name '*.py' \
-exec sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' {} \;
Thanks for explanation. Fixed.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- OK, great - don't forget to upload the fixed spec and srpm. :) -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com ---
Still some rpmlint flagged issues:
(1)
wiredtiger.src:66: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build sed -i -r
s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}| lang/python/Makefile.am
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may
break short circuit builds.
This is because you're doing loads of stuff in %build that should be done in
%prep. All of this should be in %prep:
# Fix installing python files into BUILDROOT
sed -i -r s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}| lang/python/Makefile.am
%configure --disable-static --with-builtins=zlib,snappy --enable-python
--enable-java JAR=%{java_home}/bin/jar
# Stop the build setting up an rpath
sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=|g' libtool
sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
The only thing in %build should be:
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=%{optflags}
(2)
wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
This one is because /usr/lib64/libwiredtiger.so is a symbolic link - no action
needed.
(3)
wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L
A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this
message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files
included in your package.
This is a compiled extension, and so should be under %{python_sitearch}, rather
than under %{python_sitelib}. The former is for compiled extension modules, the
latter for pure python (arch independent) modules. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com ---
Also, small nits:
(1) This:
%files python
%dir %{python_sitelib}/%{name}
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}/*
is redundant... simply:
%files python
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}
would make the package own the directory and the files under it. Similarly for
the java package. (Of course, in the python case, you'll be moving to using
sitearch instead/as well).
(2) For readability add a blank line before %package libs
(3) For readability, break long lines with trailing \, eg.
%configure --disable-static \
--with-builtins=zlib,snappy \
--enable-python \
--enable-java JAR=%{java_home}/bin/jar
etc.
(4) This weird white space is very unusual, reduces readability, and hinders
others helping to maintain your package:
mkdir %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}
mv %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}/lib*
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}
rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}/lib*.so
mkdir %{buildroot}%{_jnidir}
mv %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}.jar
%{buildroot}%{_jnidir}/
rmdir %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}
... just have a single space separating the commands and their arguments.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
