Bug 1202379 - Review Request: fwupd - Firmware update daemon
Summary: Review Request: fwupd - Firmware update daemon
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kalev Lember
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-03-16 14:02 UTC by Richard Hughes
Modified: 2015-03-16 21:12 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: fwupd-0.1.0-1.fc23
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-03-16 21:12:32 UTC
Type: ---
kalevlember: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Richard Hughes 2015-03-16 14:02:19 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fwupd.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fwupd-0.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
KOJI URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9242731
Description: fwupd is a daemon to allow session software to update device firmware
Fedora Account System Username: rhughes

$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/*RPMS/fwupd-0.1.0*
fwupd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.fwupd.conf
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 1 Kalev Lember 2015-03-16 14:06:31 UTC
Taking for review.

Comment 2 Kalev Lember 2015-03-16 14:22:47 UTC
Fedora review fwupd-0.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm 2015-03-16

+ OK
! needs attention

+ rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
! The package meets the Packaging Guidelines

  Some questions below about systemd macro use.

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
! The license text (COPYING) is included in %license

  Can you use %license COPYING instead of %doc COPYING please?

+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
  57e840121eafe4eb5510b9e8de274423  fwupd-0.1.0.tar.xz
  57e840121eafe4eb5510b9e8de274423  Download/fwupd-0.1.0.tar.xz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
+ locale handling
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all the directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Development files should be in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Proper .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8


According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd , should also have:

Requires(post): systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requires(postun): systemd

... to make sure rpm orders the transactions so that systemd gets installed before fwupd.

Another question is if it should have %systemd_postun or %systemd_postun_with_restart in %post? I don't know the answer to that, but it probably depends on whether it is safe to restart the daemon during package upgrades?

Comment 3 Richard Hughes 2015-03-16 14:27:35 UTC
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #2)
> ! The license text (COPYING) is included in %license
>   Can you use %license COPYING instead of %doc COPYING please?

Fixed, thanks.

> Requires(post): systemd
> Requires(preun): systemd
> Requires(postun): systemd

Fixed.

> Another question is if it should have %systemd_postun or
> %systemd_postun_with_restart in %post? I don't know the answer to that, but
> it probably depends on whether it is safe to restart the daemon during
> package upgrades?

At this stage, systemd_postun_with_restart makes more sense I guess; it's system activated and quit-on-idle so I don't think it matters much each way. New spec here: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fwupd.spec

Thanks!

Comment 4 Kalev Lember 2015-03-16 14:29:09 UTC
Looks good to me, thanks!

APPROVED

Comment 5 Richard Hughes 2015-03-16 14:51:38 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fwupd
Short Description: fwupd is a daemon to allow session software to update device firmware
Upstream URL: https://github.com/hughsie/fwupd
Owners: rhughes
Branches: f21 f22
InitialCC: rhughes

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-03-16 18:00:36 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Richard Hughes 2015-03-16 21:12:32 UTC
Thanks!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.