Bug 883001
| Summary: | Review Request: shim-signed - shim bootloader signed by UEFI signing service | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Jones <pjones> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matthew Garrett <mjg59> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | mjg59, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mjg59:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-08-14 15:55:38 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Peter Jones
2012-12-03 15:35:57 UTC
rpmlint output:
shim-signed.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload
shim-signed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload
shim-signed.src:5: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
shim-signed.src:5: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
shim-signed.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5)
shim-signed.spec:5: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
shim-signed.spec:5: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
shim-signed.spec:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5)
Probably ought to declare %global debug_package %{nil} . Other than that, everything looks good.
Okay, I've made that change. With that in mind: New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: shim-signed Short Description: UEFI shim bootloader signed by the UEFI signing service. Owners: pjones Branches: f18 InitialCC: mjg59 I rather think we may need some kind of exception to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries here. The binary is included as a source no? The binary is built from the source code that's included in the package that this depends on, so I don't think the reasoning applies here. The alternative is that we simply classify it as binary firmware - it meets all the listed criteria. "mjg59" is not a valid FAS account. My mistake: should be mjg59.org Clarification, use a FAS account, not an email address. (the fas account is "mjg59") Git done (by process-git-requests). (In reply to comment #5) > The alternative is that we simply classify it as binary firmware - it meets > all the listed criteria. Indeed it seems to. ;) Handy. Sounds reasonable to me... |