rpmlint - errors safely to ignore

[Troy Dawson]

Hi,
Since this is my review request, I thank you both for your help with 
this package.  I will reply inline.

On 07/02/2013 08:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 2.7.2013 14:48, Axilleas Pi napsal(a):
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am in the process of an informal review attempt of rugged [0] and I
>> bumped into some errors that rpmlint found and could be false
>> positives. I would like your opinion.
>>
>>
>> 1) explicit-lib-dependency libgit2
>> You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put
>> unneeded explicit Requires: tags.
>>
>> I have found only this section in the wiki[1] which is a little
>> relevant, but some example would be better.
>
> If package has BR on some -devel package and the library is linked
> against it, then RPM automatically pick-ups the dependency on that
> library. You don't have to specify it manually.
>
> In this case, I am afraid that libgit2 is vendored in the gem and it is
> statically linked. That means:
>
> 1) It is against bundling policy
> 2) RPM cannot pickup the dependency
> 3) It makes ironically the Requires unneeded.
>
> I would focus on solving the first point ;)
>

Good catch.  I hadn't noticed that there was anything bundled there.
I believe I've asked/commented on this before.  Removing bundled 
libraries is a pain with the current %prep setup.
This is due to the gemspec being created from the original gem.  So you 
have to remove the vendor directory, and then do some form of 
sed/perl/whatever to get all the vendor files out of the gemspec you 
just created.

>>
>>
>> 2) non-standard-executable-perm
>> /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rubygem-rugged/rugged.so 0775L
>>
>> The permissions of all libraries I have in /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/ are
>> 755 so I guess it is safe to ignore.
>
> Note the difference 07*7*5 vs 07*5*5.
>
> The thing is that the .so file in ext/ has wrong permissions, while the
> .so file in lib/ has correct permissions. The one from lib/ should be
> taken while the ext/ should be ignored/removed
>

That's a bit bizarre, when I build this in mock I get 775, but when I 
build it by hand I get 755.  I'll fix it so it's consistent.

>>
>> 3)  arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rugged/rugged.so
>> This package installs an ELF binary in the /usr/share  hierarchy,
>> which is reserved for architecture-independent files.
>
> See 2) This file should be moved into %{gem_extdir_mri}
>

This file should be removed from lib/rugged/, it's not supposed to be there.

We move the ext/rugged/rugged.so over to %{gem_extdir_mri}, as is 
standard procedure.

I hadn't noticed that the build copies the .so file over to 
lib/rugged/rugged.so, where it shouldn't be.

>>
>> Additionally to 3, running mock it shows that:
>> ------
>> DEBUG: *** WARNING: identical binaries are copied, not linked:
>> DEBUG: /usr/share/gems/gems/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rugged/rugged.so
>> DEBUG: and
>> /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rubygem-rugged/rugged.so
>> ------
>>
>> Are they both needed, is it safe to ignore?
>
> These are related to the points 2 and 3.
>
>
> Vít
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig