Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fwupd-efi.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fwupd-efi-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: fwupd is a project to allow updating device firmware, and this package provides the EFI binary that is used for updating using UpdateCapsule. This has been split out of the main fwupd package so it can be released asynchronously from the library and daemon, as additional signing requirements are required. Fedora Account System Username: rhughes $ rpmlint SPECS/fwupd-efi* SRPMS/fwupd-efi* RPMS/fwupd-efi* fwupd-efi.x86_64: E: no-binary 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Note: the "binary" in this case is an EFI binary, rather than an ELF binary in the sense that rpmlint is looking for.
Taking this review.
> -Defi_sbat_distro_version="%{version}" \ I think this should probably be "%{version}-%{release}" instead, since it would matter when you patch it.
> I think this should probably be "%{version}-%{release}" instead, since it would matter when you patch it. Completely agree, good catch! New .spec and srpm uploaded with this fix. Many thanks for the speed review.
I'm going to ignore the goop around the pesign stuff (which just reminds myself that I need to figure out how to make that less stupid...) Is there a reason we aren't going to have the DistTag on this? This doesn't seem to have a Microsoft signing requirement...
> Is there a reason we aren't going to have the DistTag on this? Err, no, unintentional! Fixed.
Review notes: * Package follows Fedora Packaging Guidelines * Package licensing is correct and license files are correctly installs * Package builds and installs with no serious issues from rpmlint There was one issue though: * Missing gcc and ninja-build BRs: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ However, I'm okay with you fixing this on import. PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thanks Neal, much appreciated. > * Missing gcc and ninja-build BRs Totally agree on gcc, my bad, fixed. Ninja is a hard requirement of meson -- so it is required in this package too?
(In reply to Richard Hughes from comment #7) > Thanks Neal, much appreciated. > > > * Missing gcc and ninja-build BRs > > Totally agree on gcc, my bad, fixed. Ninja is a hard requirement of meson -- > so it is required in this package too? I guess not, then. But it's a bit weird, since Meson is a generator program that supports different build file formats...
> But it's a bit weird, since Meson is a generator program that supports different build file formats True; but on the flip side fwupd doesn't actually require ninja; we just call %meson_build -- if meson switched to Makefiles rather than ninja.build I don't think fwupd would mind at all :)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwupd-efi
Waiting for https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9912 and then will build.
Built as fwupd-efi-1.0-1.fc35, will rebuild when the signing stuff is fixed.
Package is available in repositories, closing.