Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rpminspect, rpmlint errors and warnings #2803

Closed
martinhoyer opened this issue Apr 2, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2880
Closed

rpminspect, rpmlint errors and warnings #2803

martinhoyer opened this issue Apr 2, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2880
Labels
packaging Changes related to the rpm packaging priority | must high priority, must be included in the next release
Milestone

Comments

@martinhoyer
Copy link
Collaborator

rpminspect fails on current rawhide: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/e3a16e91-a0d0-4a66-b873-9cc5ecbf7285/

Here is a list issues from rpmlint and rpminspect

rpminspect w/ --release=fc41:

/var/tmp/tmt (inode/directory) is world-writable on noarch

rpmlint errors

tmt.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/redis/test.sh /usr/bin/env bash

  • /usr/bin/ vs /usr/bin/env ?

tmt.noarch: E: dir-or-file-in-var-tmp /var/tmp/tmt

  • "A file in the package is located in /var/tmp. It's not permitted for packages to install files in this directory."

tmt.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/tmp/tmt 1777
tmt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/tmt/templates/script/beakerlib.j2 644 /bin/bash
tmt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/tmt/templates/script/shell.j2 644 /bin/sh -eux

rpmlint warnings

tmt.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided tmt-report-html
tmt.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided tmt-report-junit
tmt.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided tmt-report-polarion
tmt.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided tmt-report-reportportal

  • Perhaps we can get rid the obsoletes in new Fedora versions?

tmt.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.32.1 ['1.32.1-1.fc40', '1.32.1-1']

  • Missing dash, release (1.0.0 vs 1.0.0-1)
@martinhoyer martinhoyer added the packaging Changes related to the rpm packaging label Apr 2, 2024
@martinhoyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tmt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/tmt/templates/script/beakerlib.j2 644 /bin/bash

These errors should be ignored as they are script template, not script. I haven't found a way to mark them for rpmlint to ignore though.

@lukaszachy
Copy link
Collaborator

@lukaszachy lukaszachy modified the milestones: 1.32.2, 1.33 Apr 22, 2024
@martinhoyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Still some errors: https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/build/fbb542e914d941119311ce3fccac43aa

The "obsoletes", and "incoherent-version" can be fixed in #2880.

tmt.spec: E: unused-rpmlintrc-filter "python3-tmt.noarch: E: non-executable-script"

No idea to be honest. Maybe it's confused by the fact we have %py_provides python3-tmt, as the package name is just 'tmt'

tmt.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/tmt/templates/script/shell.j2 644 /bin/sh -eux

W: no-documentation

W: files-duplicate for fmf/.version

Can be ignored I presume. Is there any mechanism to tell rpmlint to ignore it?
In docs, I can see $PACKAGE_NAME.rpmlintrc can be in the same directory as the spec file and "addFilter ignores all errors that match the given regular expression".
Is it worth "polluting" the repository root with yet another file though?

tmt+provision-virtual.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libvirt-daemon-config-network

Hmm, "You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags."
False positive? Maybe it thinks it's a library because the name starts with 'lib'?

@happz happz modified the milestones: 1.33, 1.34 Apr 30, 2024
@happz happz modified the milestones: 1.34, 1.35 Jun 11, 2024
@happz happz added the priority | must high priority, must be included in the next release label Jun 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
packaging Changes related to the rpm packaging priority | must high priority, must be included in the next release
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants