https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2445182



--- Comment #4 from [email protected] ---
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #3)
> > Thank you, I updated my initial post.
> That's still a bad link, as it goes to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition
> of the spec. Please use "raw file" links.
> 

OK, sorry, my mistake :)

> > # Turn off debug packages
> > %global _enable_debug_package 0
> > %global debug_package %{nil}
> Debuginfo packages are required, unless the information contained in them
> isn't very useful.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_debuginfo_packages

OK, I've removed the relevant lines.

> > Group:              System Environment/Daemons
> > BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> No longer used in Fedora.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

Gone.

> > make %{?_smp_mflags}
> You may want to use %make_build instead, which handles smp flags for you and
> enables verbose mode.

OK

> > %install
> > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> Don't.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

OK

> > make install \
> >     DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> You may want to use %make_install instead, which handles DESTDIR for you.

OK

> > %files master
> > [...]
> > %attr(755,root,root) %{_sbindir}/mfsmaster
> You should probably use %{_bindir} here, since /sbin is now merged into /bin
> since Fedora 42.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin

OK

> Also, setting the file mode is most likely not needed. Executables get 0755
> by default.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions

It looks like not setting file modes doesn't work, at least according to lint:

moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsarchive 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsbdev 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfscopygoal 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsdiagtools 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfseattr 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsfacl 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsgetgoal 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsmount 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfspatadmin 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsquota 644
[... and so on]

So I'm leaving it there.

> > # %%attr(755,root,root) %%{_sbindir}/mfsbdev - moved to EXTRA_FILES
> > /sbin/mount.moosefs
> This one file uses a literal path instead of the %{_bindir} macro.

The "/sbin" was forced by configure. We handled that on configure level, now it
can be overridden by a configure option and I'm using that option in Fedora
spec, so I can use %{_bindir} here. But since this is a change in the source
and we have a couple more changes in the pipeline, we will probably have to
release MooseFS 4.58.4, so I can get the correct sources to build against.
Should I close this request and open a new one later or just let it hang for
now and upload new versions of everything when I have them ready (hopefully
next week)?


-- 
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=2445182

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202445182%23c4

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new

Reply via email to