3.20. Checking pello for sanity

rpmlint pello.spec

$ rpmlint pello.spec
pello.spec:30: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/%{name}
pello.spec:34: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/%{name}.pyc
pello.spec:39: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/%{name}/
pello.spec:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/
pello.spec:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/%{name}.py*
pello.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://www.example.com/pello/releases/pello-0.1.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings.

The invalid-url Source0 warning says that the URL listed in the Source0 directive is unreachable. This is expected, because the specified example.com URL does not exist. Presuming that this URL will work in the future, you can ignore this warning.

The hardcoded-library-path errors suggest to use the %{_libdir} macro instead of hard-coding the library path. For the sake of this example, you can safely ignore these errors. However, for packages going into production make sure to check all errors carefully.

rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pello-0.1.2-1.el8.src.rpm

$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pello-0.1.2-1.el8.src.rpm
pello.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.example.com/pello HTTP Error 404: Not Found
pello.src:30: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/%{name}
pello.src:34: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/%{name}.pyc
pello.src:39: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/%{name}/
pello.src:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/
pello.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/%{name}.py*
pello.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://www.example.com/pello/releases/pello-0.1.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings.

The new invalid-url URL error here is about the URL directive, which is unreachable. Assuming that the URL will be valid in the future, you can safely ignore this error.

When checking binary RPMs, rpmlint checks for the following items:

rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/pello-0.1.2-1.el8.noarch.rpm

$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/pello-0.1.2-1.el8.noarch.rpm
pello.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.example.com/pello HTTP Error 404: Not Found
pello.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
pello.noarch: W: no-documentation
pello.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pello/pello.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
pello.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pello
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

The no-documentation and no-manual-page-for-binary warnings say that the RPM has no documentation or manual pages, because you did not provide any.

The only-non-binary-in-usr-lib warning says that you provided only non-binary artifacts in /usr/lib/. This directory is normally reserved for shared object files, which are binary files. Therefore, rpmlint expects at least one or more files in /usr/lib/ directory to be binary.

This is an example of an rpmlint check for compliance with Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. Normally, use RPM macros to ensure the correct placement of files. For the sake of this example, you can safely ignore this warning.

The non-executable-script error warns that the /usr/lib/pello/pello.py file has no execute permissions. The rpmlint tool expects the file to be executable, because the file contains the shebang. For the purpose of this example, you can leave this file without execute permissions and ignore this error.

Apart from the above warnings and errors, the RPM passed rpmlint checks.