https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2525507

Hans de Goede <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede <[email protected]> ---
There are a number of issues with this package:

1. You have the same %changelog instead of %autochangelog as in a couple of
your previous packages, please fix this for the next version.

2. its -devel install a /usr/include/object.h header which is a much much too
generic header name

3. The udev-rules start the service based on quite generic device names /
classes like /dev/tee* and mmc_rpmb, causing the services to also hw-activate
on non Qualcomm hw when installed. I think it might be best to install this as
a udev-rule example in %docs instead. That or fix the udev-rules to be more
specific / selective.

4. A bigger problem is that the upstream sources seem to contain binary only
firmware files, looking at:

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/10909154-minkipc/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt

and then specifically at the "Unknown or generated" at the end it has:

minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/mink_platform/mink_test/qtvm_test/prebuilt_qtee_ta/credtestapp64.mbn
...
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/NO.LOGIN.BINARY.LICENSE.QTI.pdf
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/glymur/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/glymur/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/kaanapali/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/kaanapali/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/mahua/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/mahua/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcm2290/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcm2290/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcm6490/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcm6490/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcs615/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcs8300/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcs8300/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcs9100/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/qcs9100/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/shikra/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/shikra/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/sm8750/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/sm8750/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/x1e80100/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/x1e80100/tzecotestapp.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/x1p42100/FD02C9DA-306C-48C7-A49C-BBD827AE86EE.mbn
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/x1p42100/tzecotestapp.mbn

The files under the 'ta/' dir are presumably licensed under:

minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/ta/NO.LOGIN.BINARY.LICENSE.QTI.pdf

Which when converted to text appears to be the same license as under which
Qualcomm linux-firmware files are shipped. Which would make them fall under the
firmware-license exception:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval/#_licenses_allowed_for_firmware

But the
minkipc-1.2.9-build/minkipc-1.2.9/mink_platform/mink_test/qtvm_test/prebuilt_qtee_ta/credtestapp64.mbn
file does not seem to have any license specified at all!

And even with the other firmware files being under an ok firmware license, none
end up in the actual build rpms and the firmware-license extension starts with:
"Some applications, drivers, and hardware require binary firmware images to
boot Fedora Linux or function properly." which is clearly not the case here
since we end up not packaging these at all.

So I think it is just best to use a cleaned tarbal with *all* firmware files
removed, see:

https://fedorapeople.org/~tmz/guidelines/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-upstream-uses-prohibited-code


-- 
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=2525507

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202525507%23c2

-- 
_______________________________________________
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