[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-03-22 17:05:26 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2z6dYVe2gKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libsigrok-0.1.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6HKPZlg7W1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WSjwNpYbIma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libsigrok-0.1.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsigrok-0.1.1-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kEuO7FLugca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libsigrok-0.1.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oHQqZOGJOra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ikEcGSZpAHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #13 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libsigrok Short Description: Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers Owners: mrnuke Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: mrnuke -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BqohVrfQXda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DX3riLuCNba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FNK7fhrFYOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976
Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
boy I suck, sorry I forgot about this. Here we go...
1. -doc SHOULD drop
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
It's just documentation, really has no strict dependency on the base package.
If you *do* really want a dep, since this is api docs, I'd recommend depending
on %{name}-devel instead
naming: ok
macros: ok
2. SHOULD track library soname, I'd recommend using a few less * globs, and
track files closer, using (something like) this instead:
%files
%{_libdir}/libsigrok.so.0*
%files devel
...
%{_includedir}/sigrok*.h
%{_libdir}/libsigrok.so
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libsigrok.pc
because if any of these change, it means the pkg api/abi has changed too, and
excessive globbing will hide that fact, and could lead to surprises later
(broken dependencies in packages depending on this one).
sources: ok
285c0b69aa3d36a431bf752c4f70c755 libsigrok-0.1.1.tar.gz
licensing: ok
A lot of the other details were verified already by Dan. As there are no
blockers here I can see, APPROVED and SPONSORED.
please do consider addressing the SHOULD items I mentioned prior to doing any
official builds.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vS2B2UI0bma=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #10 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- ping? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hBGMVVq2Nba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Sorry for the delay, will try to wrap this up over this week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MqFVdbOSiba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- I can review today. Alex, can you mention what your FAS username is (i'll need that to sponsor you)? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_a_Fedora_Account -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4veaoWOKfca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #9 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- FAS username: mrnuke -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AUX1ikuH9oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #7 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- I think the best solution is: # combined GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and BSD License: GPLv3+ This is also upstream's intention. They won't update the offending license headers for a few reasons: BSD files: The authors prefer that their work remains under BSD. GPLv2+ files: Not enough interest in updating the headers, as it's 100% compatible with GPLv3+. SPEC: http://g-tech.no-ip.org/~mrnuke/fedrev/libsigrok-0.1.1-2/libsigrok.spec SRPM: http://g-tech.no-ip.org/~mrnuke/fedrev/libsigrok-0.1.1-2/libsigrok-0.1.1-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #5 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- GPLv2+ and BSD completely misses the GPLv3+, which is the resulting license of the package. I can't help but imagine this might cause some confusion. From the licensing guidelines, I am led to believe that GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and BSD is the correct way of specifying the license. A bit confusing, I must admit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Depends on how each license is used in the combined work. It's the packager's perrogative whether to list a simple aggregated license or to list them all (I personally prefer the former). In short, either # combined GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and BSD License: GPLv3+ or License: GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and BSD is acceptable also, i'd be willing to serve as sponsor if dan (or anyone else) is willing to do the rest of the review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #4 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- GPLv2+ and BSD should be good enough -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #3 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- Regarding: Licenses found: BSD (2 clause), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later) I have spoken with upstream, and they are aware some files are GPLv2+. However, the library as a whole is GPLV3+, and the headers installed by the -devel package are all GPLv3+. As a whole, the package is GPLv3+, and I think it doesn't make sense to specify both GPLv3+ and GPLV2+. The same argument applies for the BSD files. I don't have a problem specifying all the licenses, although what is shipped ends up being GPLv3+. What is your take? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976
--- Comment #1 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com ---
I cannot sponsor you as a packager but I have done some of the legwork.
[dan@f17 x86_64]$ rpmlint libsigrok-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[dan@f17 x86_64]$ rpmlint libsigrok-devel-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libsigrok-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[dan@f17 x86_64]$ rpmlint libsigrok-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpm[dan@f17 SRPMS]$ rpmlint libsigrok-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[dan@f17 SRPMS]$
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
devel, %package doc
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[ ]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (2 clause), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or
generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/dan/865976-libsigrok/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #2 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Koji f17 scratch build here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4589804 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||865979 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
