Bug 1725069 - Review Request: rkdeveloptool - A simple way to read/write Rock Chips rockusb devices
Summary: Review Request: rkdeveloptool - A simple way to read/write Rock Chips rockusb...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: ARMTracker
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-06-28 11:05 UTC by Peter Robinson
Modified: 2019-07-27 13:28 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2019-07-27 13:28:11 UTC
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Robinson 2019-06-28 11:05:05 UTC
SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rkdeveloptool.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rkdeveloptool-1.3-1.fc30.src.rpm

A simple way to read/write rockusb devices for flashing firmware to Rock Chips
SoC based devices such as those based on the rk3399/3368/3328/3288 etc.

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35888723

FAS: pbrobinson

Comment 1 Artur Iwicki 2019-07-06 10:44:00 UTC
># Upstream doesn't currently push the release tags, upstream issue filed
># https://github.com/rockchip-linux/rkdeveloptool/issues/36
># git archive --format=tar --prefix=%{name}-%{version}/ 081d237ad5bf | xz > ~/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
>Source0:       %{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
># Source0:       https://github.com/rockchip-linux/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
With GitHub, you can use the following:
- %global git_commit COMMIT_HASH
- Source0: https://github.com/rockchip-linux/%{name}/archive/%{git_commit}/%{name}-%{git_commit}.tar.gz
You will also later need to use:
- %autosetup -n %{name}-%{git_commit}

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 2019-07-12 16:58:24 UTC
 - Add a comment explaining why the patch is needed

 - As Artur said you can d/l the archive for a particular commit directly.

Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issues before umport.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: rkdeveloptool-1.3-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
rkdeveloptool.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rockusb -> rockbound
rkdeveloptool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rockusb -> rockbound
rkdeveloptool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rkdeveloptool
rkdeveloptool.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rockusb -> rockbound
rkdeveloptool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rockusb -> rockbound
rkdeveloptool.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
rkdeveloptool.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
rkdeveloptool.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
rkdeveloptool.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
rkdeveloptool.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
rkdeveloptool.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
rkdeveloptool.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
rkdeveloptool.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
rkdeveloptool.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 9: %{name}-%{version}/ 081d237ad5bf | xz > ~/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
rkdeveloptool.src: E: specfile-error 
rkdeveloptool.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 11: %{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings.

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