Bug 225893 - Merge Review: hwdata
Merge Review: hwdata
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Parag AN(पराग)
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks: F9MergeReviewTarget
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:04 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-09-21 16:35 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-12-25 02:14:29 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
panemade: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:04:18 EST
Fedora Merge Review: hwdata

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/hwdata/
Initial Owner: karsten@redhat.com
Comment 1 Karsten Hopp 2007-02-21 05:04:48 EST
hwdata-0.196-1 has a fixed buildroot
Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-02-26 04:53:32 EST
Missing items from SPEC file:-
1) Add disttag (Not necessary but its good to have it in SPEC)
2) You need to replace following line under %files section
%config /usr/share/hwdata/* 
with
/usr/share/hwdata/*

Or you can move those files to /etc and add following line
%config(noreplace) /usr/share/hwdata/*

Above is necessary to make rpmlint output silent. However its ok to have
following warning reported by rpmlint
W: hwdata no-url-tag 
Comment 3 Karsten Hopp 2007-02-26 07:22:58 EST
I've added the disttag, but I disagree with 2)
The packaging guidelines don't mandate that every config file needs to be in /etc
The files in /usr/share/hwdata/ are config files and should be labeled as such.

They can't be moved to /etc without breaking lots of other packages which need
to read from those files. I'd like to avoid using a symlink as 
a) packages using the /usr/share/hwdata will break when /usr isn't mounted and
   they check only for files, not for directories
b) if I need to revert that later it'll be almost impossible with rpm as rpm 
   can't replace symlinks with directories.
Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-02-26 07:36:15 EST
(In reply to comment #3)
> I've added the disttag, but I disagree with 2)
> The packaging guidelines don't mandate that every config file needs to be in /etc
> The files in /usr/share/hwdata/ are config files and should be labeled as such.
> 
> They can't be moved to /etc without breaking lots of other packages which need
> to read from those files. I'd like to avoid using a symlink as 
> a) packages using the /usr/share/hwdata will break when /usr isn't mounted and
>    they check only for files, not for directories
> b) if I need to revert that later it'll be almost impossible with rpm as rpm 
>    can't replace symlinks with directories.

Ok. That will be enough explanation for me :)
We can then let rpmlint output as not silent.
Will do Full review tomorrow.
Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2007-02-26 07:57:06 EST
I strongly disagree that it is acceptable to have config files in 
/usr. In fact /usr should be mountable read only. And it is in 
the guidelines, since we are bound to follow the FHS:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-e1c5548cbbe551c7a43d375c524ab2ea0188557e

Now it may be so hard to put things in /etc that it isn't doable, 
but in my opinion it is mandatory.
Comment 6 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-02-26 23:15:46 EST
karsten,
    I think Patrice is right.
Comment 7 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-14 01:44:22 EDT
In case you have %config and %config(noreplace) in your SPEC then You may like
to update the SPEC by removing that.
Check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20070313
and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsrConfigs
Comment 8 Karsten Hopp 2007-03-14 09:03:17 EDT
I still don't agree, but the new packaging guidelines are clear about this.
fixed in hwdata-0.199-1.fc7
Comment 9 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-15 01:38:51 EDT
Can you use macros in SPEC instead hard coded directory names?
Packaging Guidelines said->
Use macros instead of hard-coded directory names (see Extras/RPMMacros). 
Comment 10 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-03-30 09:25:38 EDT
any updates?
Comment 11 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-04-10 06:19:20 EDT
No response from maintainer
Comment 12 Karsten Hopp 2007-04-10 07:29:55 EDT
I've built hwdata-0.200-1 with updated pci.ids and use macros now
Comment 13 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-09-20 00:09:53 EDT
hmm. Still pending for review since 5 months.
let me again take it for review.

missing BR gawk. mock build gave me
+ make install DESTDIR=/var/tmp/hwdata-0.207-1.fc8-root-mockbuild
make: awk: Command not found
make: awk: Command not found
make: awk: Command not found
Comment 14 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-09-20 00:12:58 EDT
also got rpmlint messages on SRPM as
hwdata.src: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages
don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's
configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as
injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if
empty.

===> Add empty build section

hwdata.src: W: invalid-license GPL/MIT
The value of the License tag was not recognized.  Known values are:
"Adobe", "Affero GPL", "AFL", "ARL", "ASL 1.0", "ASL 1.0+", "ASL 1.1", "ASL
1.1+", "ASL 2.0", "ASL 2.0+", "APSL 2.0", "APSL 2.0+", "Artistic 2.0",
"Artistic clarified", "BitTorrent", "Boost", "BSD", "BSD with advertising",
"CeCILL", "CDDL", "CPL", "Condor", "Copyright only", "Cryptix", "Crystal
Stacker", "EPL", "eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "EU Datagrid", "Giftware",
"Glide", "gnuplot", "GPL+", "GPL+ or Artistic", "GPLv2", "GPLv2 with
exceptions", "GPLv2+", "GPLv3", "GPLv3+", "IBM", "IJG", "ImageMagick",
"iMatix", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "ISC", "Jabber", "JasPer", "LGPLv2",
"LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv3", "LGPLv3+", "libtiff", "LPL",
"LPPL", "mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MPLv1.0", "MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1", "MPLv1.1+",
"NCSA", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OpenPBS", "OSL 1.0",
"OSL 1.0+", "OSL 1.1", "OSL 1.1+", "OSL 2.0", "OSL 2.0+", "OSL 3.0", "OSL
3.0+", "OpenSSL", "Phorum", "PHP", "Public Domain", "Python", "QPL", "RPSL",
"Ruby", "Sleepycat", "SISSL", "SLIB", "SPL", "TCL", "UCD", "Vim", "VNLSL",
"VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWindows", "xinetd", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+",
"ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+", "ZPLv2.1", "ZPLv2.1+", "zlib", "CDL", "FBSDDL", "GFDL",
"IEEE", "OFSFDL", "Open Publication", "CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", "DSL", "Free Art",
"Arphic", "Bitstream Vera", "mplus", "OFL", "Utopia", "XANO",
"Redistributable, no modification permitted", "Freely redistributable without
restriction".

===> Add GPLv2+ as License
Comment 15 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-13 01:15:18 EST
This is last call to you to provide updates here before going on fedora-devel
Comment 16 Karsten Hopp 2007-12-13 06:13:24 EST
thanks for the reminder, somehow hwdata never manged to get to the top of my
TODO list...

I'll start on it right now:
- license seems to be 'GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+'
- empty %build section added to the git repository

Comment 17 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-13 22:13:39 EST
so you built package already? I need cvs update to approve this review.
Comment 18 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-18 09:13:45 EST
ping?
Comment 19 Karsten Hopp 2007-12-22 13:16:51 EST
Sorry, I needed to leave early into the holiday season due to family reasons.
I've pushed hwdata-0.208-1.fc9 to koji a minute ago.
Comment 20 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-25 02:14:29 EST
SHOULD:
  As you are the upstream, With assumption that you will modify Makefile from
 for foo in $(FILES) ; do \
                install -m 644 $$foo $(datadir)/$(NAME) ;\
to 
 for foo in $(FILES) ; do \
                install -p -m 644 $$foo $(datadir)/$(NAME) ;\

Above will preserve timestamps.

APPROVED.

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