============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /opt/testing/lib64/python3.13/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/cron-whitelist.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/dbus-services.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/device-files-whitelist.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/licenses.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/opensuse.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/pam-modules.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/permissions-whitelist.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/pie-executables.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/polkit-rules-whitelist.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/scoring.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/security.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/sudoers-whitelist.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/sysctl-whitelist.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/systemd-tmpfiles.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/world-writable-whitelist.toml /opt/testing/share/rpmlint/zypper-plugins.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring-strict.override.toml checks: 41, packages: 6 rpm.x86_64: W: zero-perms-ghost Suggestion: "%ghost %attr(0644,root,root) /var/lib/rpm" Your package contains a file with no permissions. This is usually an error because the file won't be accessible by any user. You should check the file permissions and ensure that are correct or fix it using "%attr" macro in %files section. http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-anywhere-specifying-file-attributes.html rpm.x86_64: E: systemd-service-without-service_del_preun rpmconfigcheck.service The package contains a systemd service but doesn't contain a %preun with a call to service_del_preun. rpm.x86_64: E: systemd-service-without-service_del_postun rpmconfigcheck.service The package contains a systemd service but doesn't contain a %postun with a call to service_del_postun. rpm.x86_64: E: systemd-service-without-service_add_pre rpmconfigcheck.service The package contains a systemd service but doesn't contain a %pre with a call to service_add_pre. rpm.x86_64: E: systemd-service-without-service_add_post rpmconfigcheck.service The package contains a systemd service but doesn't contain a %post with a call to service_add_post. rpm.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10.2.1 rpm.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/librpmio.so.10.2.1 rpm.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/librpmsign.so.10.2.1 This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig. rpm-plugin-unshare.x86_64: E: no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. rpm.spec: W: no-%check-section The spec file does not contain an %check section. Please check if the package has a testsuite and what it takes to enable the testsuite as part of the package build. If it is not possible to run it in the build environment (OBS/koji) or no testsuite exists, then please ignore this warning. You should not insert an empty %check section. rpm.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary RPM rpm.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary RPM The name of the package is repeated in its summary. Make the summary brief and to the point without including redundant information in it. rpm.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/librpmio.so.10.2.1 This executable is calling setuid and setgid without setgroups or initgroups. This means it didn't relinquish all groups, and this would be a potential security issue. librpmbuild10.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/librpmbuild.so.10.2.1 rpm.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10.2.1 rpm.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/librpmio.so.10.2.1 rpm.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/librpmsign.so.10.2.1 This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. librpmbuild10.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/librpmbuild.so.10.2.1 This package contains a library and provides no %post scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. rpm.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/INSTALL A file whose name suggests that it contains installation instructions is included in the package. Such instructions are often not relevant for already installed packages. rpm.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/rpm/platform/ia32e-linux/macros /usr/lib/rpm/platform/amd64-linux/macros rpm.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/rpm/platform/i486-linux/macros /usr/lib/rpm/platform/i386-linux/macros rpm.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/rpm/platform/ppcpseries-linux/macros /usr/lib/rpm/platform/ppc32dy4-linux/macros:/usr/lib/rpm/platform/ppc8260-linux/macros:/usr/lib/rpm/platform/ppc8560-linux/macros:/usr/lib/rpm/platform/ppciseries-linux/macros rpm.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/rpm/platform/ppc64pseries-linux/macros /usr/lib/rpm/platform/ppc64iseries-linux/macros rpm.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/rpm/platform/sparcv9-linux/macros /usr/lib/rpm/platform/sparc-linux/macros rpm.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rpm/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/COPYING rpm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/variables_0.js /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/all_0.js rpm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/enumvalues_c.js /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/all_15.js rpm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/groups_4.js /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/all_5.js rpm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/variables_9.js /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/API/search/all_c.js Your package contains duplicated files that are not hard- or symlinks. You should use the %fdupes macro to link the files to one. rpm-build.x86_64: E: devel-dependency glibc-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. Check time report (>1% & >0.1s): Check Duration (in s) Fraction (in %) Checked files ExtractRpm 1.5 45.3 BashismsCheck 0.6 18.3 BinariesCheck 0.3 10.5 FilesCheck 0.3 8.2 SUIDPermissionsCheck 0.2 5.1 TOTAL 3.3 100.0 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 15 warnings, 200 filtered, 15 badness; has taken 3.3 s