Bug 772233

$ rpmlint mstflint.spec mstflint-1.4-6.fc15.x86_64.rpm
mstflint.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma
mstflint.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openib-mstflint
mstflint.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openib-tvflash
mstflint.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided tvflash
mstflint.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mstmread
mstflint.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mstflint
mstflint.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mstvpd
mstflint.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mstregdump
mstflint.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mstmwrite
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

How does mstflint relate to the mft packages provided by Mellanox?

http://www.mellanox.com/content/pages.php?pg=management_tools&menu_section=34

For some reason I got the idea that mstflint is older software, but I could easily be mistaken.

Is it worth packaging this for Fedora?

I believe they are the same thing or at least as close as they can be given that the mft packages are Windows/Linux capable while mstflint is linux specific.

The older software you are referring to is tvflash.  Both mstflint and mft tools supersede the old tvflash software.  I'm not bothering to submit that for Fedora although it exists in both EL4 and EL5.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: mstflint
Short Description: Utility to burn firmware images on Mellanox hardware
Owners: dledford
Branches: f15 f16
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

mstflint-1.4-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mstflint-1.4-6.fc16

mstflint-1.4-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mstflint-1.4-6.fc15

Was this package actually reviewed at all?  According to the bug history, the fedora-review+ flag was set by fenlason but there's not a single comment from him and this bug is still assigned to someone else.

The package doesn't seem to be actually building anything at all from sources but ships prebuilt executables included in the source tarball (which are built for x86_64; meaning the i686 package contains x86_64 binaries too).  This is something that should be fixed quickly.

Indeed.  I'm also curious exactly what has been done.  If this can't be built from source it needs to be removed.

On 2 minutes glance, a make clean before make might be all it needs, but that doesn't answer the Ville's concerns about the review.

My apologies for this guys.  The upstream people gave me a tarball to include a fix and it was a simple update so I put the tarball in the sources and rebuilt without inspecting the new tarball (that was the last update prior to submitting to Fedora).  That tarball is just broken though.  I'm going to have upstream get me a new tarball.  In the meantime I've created a cleaned up tarball of my own and submitted a build to resolve the issue.

In regards to the question of the review, there was one, Albert did it, but he's new to the process (and fairly new to Fedora) and so Jay backed him up and set the review complete flag.

Noted, thanks.  Make sure Albert is aware that it's customary to provide details of the review in the BZ, often using a template or a list from the Review Guidelines.

Unfortunately, I do so few reviews I'm just as bad.  Another user pointed me at the normal process page and I started making my submissions better.  For example the ones I current have that are still open do a better job of following the normal procedures.

Onward and upward!

mstflint-1.4-7.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

mstflint-1.4-7.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

mstflint-1.4-7.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.