https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373805 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- This package is APPROVED. (In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #10) > 2. unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/beetbrainz /lib64/libresolv.so.2 > and missing -Wl,--as-needed: > > I believe that is a false flag from rpmlint. beetbrainz is a webhook > listener and network application, meaning libresolv.so.2 (which handles DNS > lookups) is needed for its core functionality. Even though --as-needed is > correctly specified via %{build_ldflags}, Go's external linking process > often includes libresolv because its network routines or CGo interactions > genuinely depend on it, making the dependency used rather than unused. Okay, this isn't a big deal, but I will note that after installing the binary package, I see this: $ ldd -u /usr/bin/beetbrainz Unused direct dependencies: /lib64/libresolv.so.2 That means that no undefined symbols in /usr/bin/beetbrainz are resolved by libresolv.so.2. Indeed, looking at the undefined symbols in /usr/bin/beetbrainz (readelf -s /usr/bin/beetbrainz), the only network-related symbols I see are: - getaddrinfo - freeaddrinfo - gai_strerror all of which are defined in libc these days. So I think rpmlint is correct and the libresolv dependency is unused. But I'm not going to make a fuss about it. :-) > 3. Possibility of creating a man page: > > Good idea, I created one and it is in the tarball as beetbrainz.8. > > However, despite the file being physically present in the buildroot > immediately after installation (confirmed by ls -l in %install), every > attempt to package beetbrainz.8 as a manual page has consistently resulted > in an "error: File not found" during the RPM packaging's %files section > processing. The trick with man pages is that they are automatically compressed (by /usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress), so you have to account for the extra filename extension in %files. Right now, the man pages are compressed with gzip, but that could change in the future, so a glob is usually used. For example, I modified your spec file by adding this to %install: mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8 install -p %{project}.8 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8 And adding this to %files: %{_mandir}/man8/%{project}.8* That works. Obligatory link to the packaging guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages I have approved this package. You can decide whether or not to include the manpage when you import the 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373805 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202373805%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ 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
