https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Hanns-Joachim Uhl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1384452
--
You are receiving thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #51 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #50)
> It's in /usr/share/licenses/tss2 - as you can find out by rpm -ql tss2
Oh, it is. :) I couldn't see that licenses directory by eyeballing...should
have tried
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #50 from Tomas Mraz ---
It's in /usr/share/licenses/tss2 - as you can find out by rpm -ql tss2
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #49 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
I could find the LICENSE file under /usr/share/doc/tss2-713/ in RHEL6, but the
"%license LICENSE" seemed to have ignored by Fedora. I couldn't find the
LICENSE file anywhere, nor could I find much info a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Ken Goldman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kgold...@us.ibm.com
--- Comment #47 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #46 from Tomas Mraz ---
I would not say this is really so huge task as the changes in most cases are
pretty straightforward. Also there will be no openssl-1.0.x in Fedora 26 that
could be used to build tss2 against and even if it w
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ON_QA
--- Comment #45 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #44 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #37)
> Also note that we are moving to OpenSSL-1.1.0 in rawhide very soon, so
> please work on making the tss2 compile against it.
>
The developer of the package,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #43 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
The builds were successful, both on rawhide and f25:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=23163
I've submitted an update for the package (as this is later "Branched") via the
Bodhi w
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #42 from Tomas Mraz ---
Yes, it is sponsored into Packagers now.
--
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=1366047
--- Comment #41 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Fedora Account System Username: honclo
--
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=1366047
--- Comment #40 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #37)
> Please remove the %defattr(0644,root,root,-) in the -devel subpackage, this
> is causing:
>
> tss2-devel.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/tss2-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
l...@us.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||238953
|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
l...@us.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||485231
|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #39 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #38)
> I have also sponsored you into Fedora packager group.
Thank you very much for your reviews and willingness to sponsor me into the
Feodra packager group! I'll
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Tomas Mraz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #38 from Tomas Mraz ---
I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Tomas Mraz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #37 from Toma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #36 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Hi Tomas,
If there is anything else that I can do in order for the package to get
approved, please feel free to let me know.
Thanks,
Vicky
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #35 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
COPR output: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/honclo/TSS2/build/458951
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #34 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #30)
> I would say that in using Exclude vs. ExclusiveArch we should apply some
> reasoning - if it is positively known that the package does not work on
> anything e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #33 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to yunying.sun from comment #29)
> From Fedora packaging guideline, ExcludeArch is preferred than
> ExclusiveArch, see "ExcludeArch & ExclusiveArch" part @
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Arch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #32 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Updated Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
Updated SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-6.fc24.src.rpm
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1581
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #31 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-5.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #30 from Tomas Mraz ---
I would say that in using Exclude vs. ExclusiveArch we should apply some
reasoning - if it is positively known that the package does not work on
anything else than x86_64 ppc64le armv7hl i686 then ExclusiveA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
yunying@intel.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yunying@intel.com
--- Comm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #28 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #26)
> (In reply to lo1 from comment #24)
> > The developer has been using nonstandard variables such as LNFLAGS (as
> > opposed to LDFLAGS) and CCFLAGS (for CFLAGS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #27 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-4.el6.src.rpm
Description:
TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS) f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #26 from Tomas Mraz ---
(In reply to lo1 from comment #24)
> The developer has been using nonstandard variables such as LNFLAGS (as
> opposed to LDFLAGS) and CCFLAGS (for CFLAGS) etc. There were other compile
> flags such as CCLFL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #25 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jerry Snitselaar from comment #22)
> > cat /etc/fedora-release
> Fedora release 24 (Twenty Four)
> > rpmlint --version
> rpmlint version 1.9 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #24 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #23)
> I'll review this package.
>
> My comments:
>
> Use ExclusiveArch instead of BuildArch and in general follow
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Gui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Tomas Mraz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tm...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Jerry Snitselaar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsnit...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #21 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-3.el6.src.rpm
Description:
TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS) f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #19 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> not needed
>
> > rm -fr %{buildroot}
> not needed
>
> > %clean
> > [ "%{bui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #19 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> not needed
>
> > rm -fr %{buildroot}
> not needed
>
> > %clean
> > [ "%{bui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #18 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Rpmlint output:
rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS/tss2* ../RPMS/*/tss2*
tss2.spec:73: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:74: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:75: E: files-attr-not-set
tss2.spec:76: E: files-attr-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #17 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~honclo/tss2-713-2.el6.src.rpm
Description:
TSS2 is a user space Trusted Computing Group's Software Stack (TSS) f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #16 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #15)
> I'll do it; I should be done in a few minutes, but it might take another
> half an hour before you're able to access the servers.
Yay got it. Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ---
I'll do it; I should be done in a few minutes, but it might take another half
an hour before you're able to access the servers.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #14 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> Can you post the updated spec file and srpm?
>
> (See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353000#c8 for an example
> that is in the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #13 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12)
> Can you post the updated spec file and srpm?
>
> (See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353000#c8 for an example
> that is in the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Can you post the updated spec file and srpm?
(See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353000#c8 for an example that
is in the most commonly used format which makes it easy for revi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ---
If you do a mock build, the buildroot will always have epel-rpm-macros. It is
one of the packages that is guaranteed to be there, like rpm or
redhat-rpm-config. This is all to simplify EPEL packaging j
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #10 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #9)
> epel-rpm-macros defines that for you, provided you don't have the SCL macros
> installed. You can't do an epel mockbuild without having epel-rpm-macros
> i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ---
epel-rpm-macros defines that for you, provided you don't have the SCL macros
installed. You can't do an epel mockbuild without having epel-rpm-macros
installed, so there isn't much reason for a package t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #8 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
>
> > %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
> not needed
Hi Igor,
I actually need that line for it to build; maybe because I'm running on
RHEL6.6.
Vic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #7 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #6)
> > Given that there are 95 executables under the %{_bindir} in this case, do
> > we still want to explicitlly list all files?
>
> In this case
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
> Given that there are 95 executables under the %{_bindir} in this case, do we
> still want to explicitlly list all files?
In this case %{_bindir}/tss* would be a reasonable compromise.
And
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #5 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> > # Copyright (C) IBM Corp. 2015,2016
> please, no ;)
>
> > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> not needed
>
> > Bu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #4 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3)
> The spec file and srpm should be available directly, so that automatic tools
> like fedora-review can download it without issues. Please, just a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko ---
> # Copyright (C) IBM Corp. 2015,2016
please, no ;)
> BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
not needed
> BuildArch:x86_64 ppc64
it doesn't build for others?
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
l...@us.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||l...@us.ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047
l...@us.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced
55 matches
Mail list logo
