Bug 225893

hwdata-0.196-1 has a fixed buildroot

Missing items from SPEC file:-
1) Add disttag (Not necessary but its good to have it in SPEC)
2) You need to replace following line under %files section
%config /usr/share/hwdata/* 
with
/usr/share/hwdata/*

Or you can move those files to /etc and add following line
%config(noreplace) /usr/share/hwdata/*

Above is necessary to make rpmlint output silent. However its ok to have
following warning reported by rpmlint
W: hwdata no-url-tag 

I've added the disttag, but I disagree with 2)
The packaging guidelines don't mandate that every config file needs to be in /etc
The files in /usr/share/hwdata/ are config files and should be labeled as such.

They can't be moved to /etc without breaking lots of other packages which need
to read from those files. I'd like to avoid using a symlink as 
a) packages using the /usr/share/hwdata will break when /usr isn't mounted and
   they check only for files, not for directories
b) if I need to revert that later it'll be almost impossible with rpm as rpm 
   can't replace symlinks with directories.

(In reply to comment #3)
> I've added the disttag, but I disagree with 2)
> The packaging guidelines don't mandate that every config file needs to be in /etc
> The files in /usr/share/hwdata/ are config files and should be labeled as such.
> 
> They can't be moved to /etc without breaking lots of other packages which need
> to read from those files. I'd like to avoid using a symlink as 
> a) packages using the /usr/share/hwdata will break when /usr isn't mounted and
>    they check only for files, not for directories
> b) if I need to revert that later it'll be almost impossible with rpm as rpm 
>    can't replace symlinks with directories.

Ok. That will be enough explanation for me :)
We can then let rpmlint output as not silent.
Will do Full review tomorrow.

I strongly disagree that it is acceptable to have config files in 
/usr. In fact /usr should be mountable read only. And it is in 
the guidelines, since we are bound to follow the FHS:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-e1c5548cbbe551c7a43d375c524ab2ea0188557e

Now it may be so hard to put things in /etc that it isn't doable, 
but in my opinion it is mandatory.

karsten,
    I think Patrice is right.

In case you have %config and %config(noreplace) in your SPEC then You may like
to update the SPEC by removing that.
Check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20070313
and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsrConfigs

I still don't agree, but the new packaging guidelines are clear about this.
fixed in hwdata-0.199-1.fc7

Can you use macros in SPEC instead hard coded directory names?
Packaging Guidelines said->
Use macros instead of hard-coded directory names (see Extras/RPMMacros). 

any updates?

No response from maintainer

I've built hwdata-0.200-1 with updated pci.ids and use macros now

hmm. Still pending for review since 5 months.
let me again take it for review.

missing BR gawk. mock build gave me
+ make install DESTDIR=/var/tmp/hwdata-0.207-1.fc8-root-mockbuild
make: awk: Command not found
make: awk: Command not found
make: awk: Command not found

also got rpmlint messages on SRPM as
hwdata.src: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages
don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's
configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as
injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if
empty.

===> Add empty build section

hwdata.src: W: invalid-license GPL/MIT
The value of the License tag was not recognized.  Known values are:
"Adobe", "Affero GPL", "AFL", "ARL", "ASL 1.0", "ASL 1.0+", "ASL 1.1", "ASL
1.1+", "ASL 2.0", "ASL 2.0+", "APSL 2.0", "APSL 2.0+", "Artistic 2.0",
"Artistic clarified", "BitTorrent", "Boost", "BSD", "BSD with advertising",
"CeCILL", "CDDL", "CPL", "Condor", "Copyright only", "Cryptix", "Crystal
Stacker", "EPL", "eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "EU Datagrid", "Giftware",
"Glide", "gnuplot", "GPL+", "GPL+ or Artistic", "GPLv2", "GPLv2 with
exceptions", "GPLv2+", "GPLv3", "GPLv3+", "IBM", "IJG", "ImageMagick",
"iMatix", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "ISC", "Jabber", "JasPer", "LGPLv2",
"LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv3", "LGPLv3+", "libtiff", "LPL",
"LPPL", "mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MPLv1.0", "MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1", "MPLv1.1+",
"NCSA", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OpenPBS", "OSL 1.0",
"OSL 1.0+", "OSL 1.1", "OSL 1.1+", "OSL 2.0", "OSL 2.0+", "OSL 3.0", "OSL
3.0+", "OpenSSL", "Phorum", "PHP", "Public Domain", "Python", "QPL", "RPSL",
"Ruby", "Sleepycat", "SISSL", "SLIB", "SPL", "TCL", "UCD", "Vim", "VNLSL",
"VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWindows", "xinetd", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+",
"ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+", "ZPLv2.1", "ZPLv2.1+", "zlib", "CDL", "FBSDDL", "GFDL",
"IEEE", "OFSFDL", "Open Publication", "CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", "DSL", "Free Art",
"Arphic", "Bitstream Vera", "mplus", "OFL", "Utopia", "XANO",
"Redistributable, no modification permitted", "Freely redistributable without
restriction".

===> Add GPLv2+ as License

This is last call to you to provide updates here before going on fedora-devel

thanks for the reminder, somehow hwdata never manged to get to the top of my
TODO list...

I'll start on it right now:
- license seems to be 'GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+'
- empty %build section added to the git repository

so you built package already? I need cvs update to approve this review.

ping?

Sorry, I needed to leave early into the holiday season due to family reasons.
I've pushed hwdata-0.208-1.fc9 to koji a minute ago.

SHOULD:
  As you are the upstream, With assumption that you will modify Makefile from
 for foo in $(FILES) ; do \
                install -m 644 $$foo $(datadir)/$(NAME) ;\
to 
 for foo in $(FILES) ; do \
                install -p -m 644 $$foo $(datadir)/$(NAME) ;\

Above will preserve timestamps.

APPROVED.