https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #2 from weiping zwp10758@gmail.com --- cputil 75 will cost 75% cpu resource of one core. The second parameters specify the running time, it is optional. This is my first package for fedora, I need your help, thanks all of you.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #3 from Weiping zwp10758@gmail.com --- See comments from other review, update file with raw format of github: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dublio/cputil/master/cputil.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dublio/cputil/releases/download/1.0/cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #5 from Weiping zwp10758@gmail.com --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #4)

Thanks your time to review my first package. I have update the spec and Makefile.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dublio/cputil/master/cputil.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dublio/cputil/releases/download/1.0/cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src...

...

Source0: https://github.com/dublio/cputil/releases/download/1.0/cputil-1.0.tar.gz

You can use %{version} as part of the Source URL so you don't have to edit it manually each time there's a new release.

OK, I modify it to: Source0: https://github.com/dublio/cputil/releases/download/%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7...

...

%install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Don't do this. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...

OK, I remove it.

...

%build make %{?_smp_flags}

You should call the %{set_build_flags} macro before the "make" call.

OK, I add it.

...

# disable producing debuginfo for this package %global debug_package %{nil}

It's a very rare circumstance when this is truly needed - all Fedora executables are built with debuginfo enabled (and then stripped to produce a -debug package). See if adding the build-flags macro (as detailed above) helps. If not, you'll have to patch the Makefile to make it respect Fedora's CFLAGS (or just call gcc directly, since it's only one file). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/ #_useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_packaging_issues

OK, I remove this macro, now rpmbuild -ba will create 4 rpms: cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm cputil-1.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm cputil-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm cputil-debugsource-1.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm

The reason why I add this macro(debug_package %{nil}) is that, I found when I rpm -ql, there are some files in /usr/lib/.build_id/, Is it ok ?

[root@f28 cputil]# rpm -ql cputil-1.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/cputil /usr/lib/.build-id /usr/lib/.build-id/a3 /usr/lib/.build-id/a3/2ae50aedd34f920bcc3da54bc3d871d29b52da /usr/share/man/man1/cputil.1.gz

Looking at the upstream Makefile:

...

cputil: cputil.o gcc -o cputil cputil.o -lpthread

GCC is no longer part of the default buildroot. You have to add "BuildRequires: gcc".

OK, thanks, I add it.

...

make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT mandir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir} bindir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} install

Looking at the Makefile, the "prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" part is not needed.

OK, I remove it.

...

%files %{_mandir}/man1/cputil.1.gz

Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard instead. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

OK, I change it to: %{_mandir}/man1/cputil.1*

Since this is your first Fedora package - consider submitting your packages to koji (the Fedora build system) for scratch builds. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Scratch_Builds

The koji build repoter: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42616777

The build command and logs: [builder@f28 cputil-1.0]$ koji build --scratch rawhide cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Uploading srpm: cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:00 12.28 KiB 20.27 KiB/sec Created task: 42616777 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42616777 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 42616777 build (rawhide, cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm): free 42616777 build (rawhide, cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-13.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 42616780 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildvm-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 42616780 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (buildvm-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 42616824 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (buildvm-armv7-19.arm.fedoraproject.org) 42616826 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 42616825 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-31.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 42616829 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, s390x): open (buildvm-s390x-18.s390.fedoraproject.org) 42616828 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): free 42616827 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, aarch64): free 42616828 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): free -> open (buildvm-ppc64le-12.ppc.fedoraproject.org) 42616827 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, aarch64): free -> open (buildvm-aarch64-13.arm.fedoraproject.org) 42616826 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 6 open 2 done 0 failed 42616825 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-31.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 5 open 3 done 0 failed 42616828 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-12.ppc.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 4 open 4 done 0 failed 42616824 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (buildvm-armv7-19.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 3 open 5 done 0 failed 42616827 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, aarch64): open (buildvm-aarch64-13.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 6 done 0 failed 42616829 buildArch (cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm, s390x): open (buildvm-s390x-18.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 7 done 0 failed 42616777 build (rawhide, cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm): open (buildvm-13.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 8 done 0 failed

42616777 build (rawhide, cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm) completed successfully

Thanks very much Weiping

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Yeah, we've been in e-mail contact.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Looks good to me, package is approved. You still need to find a sponsor.

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. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "GPL (v2)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cputil/review-cputil/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [?]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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: cputil-1.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cputil-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cputil-debugsource-1.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cputil-1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm cputil.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cpu -> CPU, cup, cu cputil.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpu -> CPU, cup, cu cputil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cpu -> CPU, cup, cu cputil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpu -> CPU, cup, cu 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #12 from Weiping zwp10758@gmail.com ---

Hello, I'm very sorry to reply so late,

when I run fedpkg request-repo cputil 1806999

I receive this message. Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago.

How can I resolve this problem.

Thanks a ton

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

Weiping zwp10758@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |--- Keywords| |Reopened

--- Comment #14 from Weiping zwp10758@gmail.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #13)

I think Mattia was wrong, I don't see the package in the repo.

Please refresh the packaging, reopen this bug, and attach the refreshed version. It'll require another re-review, but that should be quick.

There is nothing changed since version 1.0-1, a new koji build triggerd.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dublio/cputil/master/cputil.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dublio/cputil/releases/download/1.0/cputil-1.0-1.fc28.src...

Description: generate a workload cost specific cpu usage Fedora Account System Username:zwp10758

koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77999045

Please help review. Thanks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #16 from Weiping zwp10758@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #15) Thanks your review.

• Please BuildRequires: make

Otherwise the package is good.

Add 'make' to 'BuildRequires': done.

But:

• You need to sign Fedora CLA

I have signed FPCA(Fedora Project Contributor Agreement).

• You need to be sponsored to import the package in dist-git

@Zbigniew Would you please help sponsor me, thanks very much.

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/ Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #18 from Weiping zwp10758@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dublio/cputil/master/cputil.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dublio/cputil/releases/download/v1.0/cputil-1.0-1.fc28.sr...

Description: generate a workload cost specific cpu usage Fedora Account System Username:zwp10758

koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81771262

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806999

--- Comment #21 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Source is 404, it should be

Source0: https://github.com/dublio/cputil/releases/download/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%...

(missing "v")

- License is wrong/ambiguous: it is stated here https://github.com/dublio/cputil/blob/master/LICENSE that it is licensed as LGPLv3, but the header of cputil.c states it is licensed as GPLv2 Please see with upstream to clarify the licensing.

- make %{?_smp_flags} -> %{make_build}

- Consider using "install -p" in your Makefile:

install: install -m 755 -d $(bindir) install -pm 755 cputil $(bindir)/cputil install -m 755 -d $(mandir)/man1 install -pm 644 cputil.1 $(mandir)/man1

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. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cputil/review-cputil/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [?]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: cputil-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm cputil-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm cputil-debugsource-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm cputil-1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm ================================================================ rpmlint session starts =============================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 5

cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cputil-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cputil-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cputil-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cputil-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug cputil.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/cputil cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cputil-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug cputil.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/cputil cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cputil-1.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation cputil-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation cputil-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation cputil.src: E: multiple-specfiles cputil.spec cputil.spec cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/a2/0828989be6409bf81bd92693a84bd57d730a49 ../../../.build-id/a2/0828989be6409bf81bd92693a84bd57d730a49 cputil-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/a2/0828989be6409bf81bd92693a84bd57d730a49 ../../../.build-id/a2/0828989be6409bf81bd92693a84bd57d730a49 ================================ 8 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 4.4 s ================================