Fedora Merge Review: dmidecode http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/dmidecode/ Initial Owner: alan
dmidecode.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Tool to analyse BIOS DMI data.
Created attachment 330102 [details] Patch to resolve this issue I'm waiting for write access to fedora cvs. I'm also going to ping Alan to see if he wants to remain as the owner. P.
Prarit, please do not close this bug report until a full formal package review has happened and fedora-review+ is set. Both didn't happen, reopening. The bug report must not to be assigned to you, but to a reviewer; resetting as well.
I reviewed this package. It just needs very trivial fixes: * rpmlint says dmidecode.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog dmidecode.src:11: E: buildprereq-use /usr/bin/aclocal /usr/bin/automake /usr/bin/autoconf dmidecode.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes kernel-utils dmidecode.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) dmidecode-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog dmidecode.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog dmidecode.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided kernel-utils These are all easy to fix. Use for instance rpmlint -I buildprereq-use to see what the complaint is about. * The release tag is a mess. Can we continue with the usual convention?: 2%{?dist} * Source0 must be full URL (with %{name} and %{version} macros) - Buildroot is improper but it will be obsoleted soon so it's not a problem. * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. I added mclasen to the CC since he made the last known build. Sorry if this was not desired.
Ping? The fixes are all rather easy. Please give it a hand so we can close the bug.
oget, For some reason I'm not listed in the ACL for dmidecode :/. I'll ping jwilson and see what I can figure out ... P.
in 2.1.0-1.40. P.
Thanks for the update Prarit. I know you did it with good intentions but please don't close a Merge Review until the reviewer sets the "+" flag. I see that some issues are resolved but some are not. And since the package had updates since I made the initial review, there are additional issues introduced, thus I'm reopening the bug (sorry!) (For each issue, I am adding the reference to the respective guideline which you can find at the bottom.) First the old issues and questions: (from comment #5) > > * The release tag is a mess. Can we continue with the usual convention?: > 2%{?dist} [1] > > * Source0 must be full URL (with %{name} and %{version} macros) [2] > > - Buildroot is improper but it will be obsoleted soon so it's not a problem. > > * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) [3] > > * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, > this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. [4] > Also additional issues: * Usage of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in the spec file is against the macro consistency guideline. Please only use one or the other. [5] ! The patches should be explained and links from upstream bugtracker should be given as comments, if possible. [6] ! BuildRequires: /usr/bin/aclocal /usr/bin/automake /usr/bin/autoconf can be replaced by simply BuildRequires: automake autoconf since file dependencies should be avoided as much as possible. [7] [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481363 [4] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make [5] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros [6] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment [7] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Dependencies
ping? any progress?
ping 2? is this too hard to fix?
Sorry Orcan, this has been very low priority for me. I'll try to bang this out this week ... P.
(In reply to comment #9) > Thanks for the update Prarit. I know you did it with good intentions but please > don't close a Merge Review until the reviewer sets the "+" flag. > > I see that some issues are resolved but some are not. And since the package had > updates since I made the initial review, there are additional issues > introduced, thus I'm reopening the bug (sorry!) > > (For each issue, I am adding the reference to the respective guideline which > you can find at the bottom.) > > First the old issues and questions: (from comment #5) > > > > * The release tag is a mess. Can we continue with the usual convention?: > > 2%{?dist} [1] This appears to be the case in the latest spec: Version: 2.10 Release: 2%{?dist} Epoch: 1 (or maybe I'm misunderstanding you ...) > > > > * Source0 must be full URL (with %{name} and %{version} macros) [2] Fixed. > > > > - Buildroot is improper but it will be obsoleted soon so it's not a problem. > > > > * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) [3] In latest spec: %files %defattr(-,root,root) > > > > * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, > > this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. [4] > > Done -- added '-j' to make > > Also additional issues: > > * Usage of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in the spec file is against the > macro consistency guideline. Please only use one or the other. [5] Done. Using %{buildroot} only. > > ! The patches should be explained and links from upstream bugtracker should be > given as comments, if possible. [6] Okay -- I'm planning on updating dmidecode for Fedora shortly so these patches won't be necessary. I will make note of this practice for the future ... > > ! BuildRequires: /usr/bin/aclocal /usr/bin/automake /usr/bin/autoconf > can be replaced by simply > BuildRequires: automake autoconf > since file dependencies should be avoided as much as possible. [7] Ah, cool :) Done. > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release > [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL > [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481363 > [4] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make > [5] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros > [6] > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > [7] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Dependencies [Stuck trying to get these changes committed to git ... will ping when it's done] P.
Thanks for the update! (In reply to comment #13) > > > > > > * The release tag is a mess. Can we continue with the usual convention?: > > > 2%{?dist} [1] > > This appears to be the case in the latest spec: > > Version: 2.10 > Release: 2%{?dist} > Epoch: 1 > > (or maybe I'm misunderstanding you ...) > It used to be Release: %(R="$Revision: 1.36 $"; RR="${R##: }"; echo ${RR%%?})%{?dist}.1 Now it is good, except your %changelog says it should be 3 instead of 2. There are 2 more minor issues, then we can approve the package: 1- You use ${buildroot} at 2 places. These should be %{buildroot}. The former is not defined. 2- Please give Source0 with full URL, using %{name}-%{version}. i.e. http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Come on Prarit :) you can do it!
(In reply to comment #15) > Come on Prarit :) you can do it! Sorry Orcan :) ... I pushed a patch last week and I thought I had updated this BZ with the changes :/. I dunno where my comment went ... commit d83d739b4b4885115e335908f9832cfea8945ef5 Author: Prarit Bhargava <prarit> Date: Wed Nov 10 10:50:28 2010 -0500 * Mon Nov 08 2010 Prarit Bhargava <prarit> - 1:2.1.0-3 - updated kernel.spec for review [BZ 225698] P.
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
Orcan, please assign it to me. I will do the proper changes.
Hi Anton, In the package reviews, including the merge reviews, the bug assignee is the reviewer; in this case that is me. To have a fair review, the person who does the review and the person who does the fixes cannot be the same. If I assign the bug on you, you will be the new reviewer, and then you will need to find someone else to fix the package. If you want to fix the package, you will need to have the maintainer access, then I (or someone else) can finish the review.
It's OK then... If you have a time, could you go through the spec once again and let me know what should be improved - I will do the changes. Anton.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.