https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354888 --- Comment #77 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I’ll address rpmlint errors and warnings, for completeness sake. (In reply to Tomas Hrcka from comment #76) > … > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Not sure if it helps much the way we use make (piece-meal), but will do anyway. > Generic: > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) This is because of using rpmautospec features, the generated SRPM has the preprocessed spec file. > [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4024320 bytes in /usr/share I assume this is due to the license files, which should go down a bit after hardlinking identical copies. > forgejo.src: E: spelling-error ('forˈd͡ʒe', '%description -l en_US forˈd͡ʒe > -> foreword') > forgejo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('forˈd͡ʒe', '%description -l en_US > forˈd͡ʒe -> foreword') False positive. > forgejo.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: forgejo-10.0.1-app.ini.tmpl.patch Same, we need more control over how the patch is applied not given by the %patch macro. > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/forgejo forgejo > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/forgejo/data forgejo > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/forgejo/log forgejo > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/forgejo/conf/app.ini forgejo > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/forgejo forgejo > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/forgejo/data forgejo > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/forgejo/log forgejo These are owned by the (created) forgejo user. > forgejo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/forgejo 750 > forgejo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/forgejo/data 750 > forgejo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/forgejo/log 750 > forgejo.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/forgejo 640 Addressed above (i.e. intentional). > forgejo.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/forgejo/conf/app.ini.tmpl Also intentional. > forgejo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary forgejo Yeah… I’m happy to include it but I won’t write it. 😁 > forgejo.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: forgejo-11.0.1-nodejs-vendor.tar.xz > forgejo.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: forgejo-11.0.1-go-vendor.tar.bz2 Not a URL. > forgejo.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 506021 > forgejo.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > … Will be addressed by hardlinking identical copies of license files. > forgejo.x86_64: W: empty-%pre This is due to the %sysusers_create_compat macro, which expands empty in newer releases. > forgejo.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/forgejo/conf/app.ini This file is also %ghost-ed but I’ll mark it noreplace regardless. > … > forgejo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/forgejo > /lib64/libresolv.so.2 No idea why this is linked in, but looks harmless. > … > There are 2 errors that I am not sure about: > No known owner of /usr/share/licenses/forgejo/public, > /usr/share/licenses/forgejo/public/assets Will fix. > > and > > forgejo.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 506021 Will run hardlinks on the many identical copies of license texts (for the bundled Go modules). > They seem like false positives, but I am not sure. > > The ownership error is a false positive. -- 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=2354888 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202354888%23c77 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
