Greetings,
My subpackage, charliecloud-devel, includes the following test files:
_libdir/charliecloud/test/sotest/libsotest.so -> ./libsotest.so.1.0* _libdir/charliecloud/test/sotest/libsotest.so.1 -> ./libsotest.so.1.0* _libdir/charliecloud/test/sotest/libsotest.so.1.0*
These files are *not* used on the host. During the charliecloud test suite execution, specifically the test 'ch-fromhost (Debian)', these files are injected into a debian container image filesystem. It is there, in the debian guest environment (charliecloud container), where /sbin/ldconfig is executed.
So rpmlint see's these files and errors as follows:
charliecloud-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/charliecloud-0.9.6/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 charliecloud-devel.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/charliecloud-0.9.6/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0
This is understandable. However, this error is not applicable for here. How do I move forward?
On 18. 01. 19 23:54, Jordan Ogas wrote:
Greetings,
My subpackage, charliecloud-devel, includes the following test files:
_libdir/charliecloud/test/sotest/libsotest.so -> ./libsotest.so.1.0* _libdir/charliecloud/test/sotest/libsotest.so.1 -> ./libsotest.so.1.0* _libdir/charliecloud/test/sotest/libsotest.so.1.0*
These files are *not* used on the host. During the charliecloud test suite execution, specifically the test 'ch-fromhost (Debian)', these files are injected into a debian container image filesystem. It is there, in the debian guest environment (charliecloud container), where /sbin/ldconfig is executed.
So rpmlint see's these files and errors as follows:
charliecloud-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/charliecloud-0.9.6/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 charliecloud-devel.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/charliecloud-0.9.6/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0
This is understandable. However, this error is not applicable for here. How do I move forward?
It is not uncommon that files intended for tests are reported as error. In Python package, we had that kind of reports for certificate files etc.
At the end we went with a rpmlint config fiel that simply silences those errors.
See our config file here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/blob/master/f/python3.rpmlintrc
And information about how to use it is located here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Taskotron/Tasks/dist.rpmlint https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint#configuration
At the end we went with a rpmlint config fiel that simply silences those errors.
See our config file here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/blob/master/f/python3.rpmlintrc
And information about how to use it is located here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Taskotron/Tasks/dist.rpmlint https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint#configuration
Very insightful, thank you. Question: how do the fedora/epel reviewers handle reviews with rpmlint config files, like the one you linked here? Do you submit the rpmlint config file along with the spec file? Perhaps a justification as well?
On 19. 01. 19 0:19, Jordan Ogas wrote:
At the end we went with a rpmlint config fiel that simply silences those errors.
See our config file here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/blob/master/f/python3.rpmlintrc
And information about how to use it is located here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Taskotron/Tasks/dist.rpmlint https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint#configuration
Very insightful, thank you. Question: how do the fedora/epel reviewers handle reviews with rpmlint config files, like the one you linked here? Do you submit the rpmlint config file along with the spec file? Perhaps a justification as well?
The rpmlint output must be part of the review. However if rpmlint gives errors and a justification is provided, it is not a blocker for the package to get accepted.
So I'd say:
* always provide justification, especially if the case is not obvious * optionally provide a config file as well if you intend to use it
rpmlint can be wrong, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
"JO" == Jordan Ogas jogas@lanl.gov writes:
JO> Question: how do the fedora/epel reviewers handle reviews with JO> rpmlint config files, like the one you linked here?
You should make a note of the issue in your specfile, and it also doesn't hurt to mention it when submitting the review. Usually I provide the complete rpmlint output with an explanation of each item to save the reviewer the trouble.
- J<
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jordan Ogas -
Miro Hrončok