Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware-20250417-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: SpacemiT firmware for the internal MCU on their X60 series SOC's and eventually other chips Fedora Account System Username: yaneti
The original firmware blob is currently not sripped and with debuginfo, might strip it for redistribution..
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8914780 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360681-spacemit-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08914780-spacemit-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
- Strip it otherwise it takes space and memory.. Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware-20250417-2.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2085429 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8914780 to 8914854
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8914854 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360681-spacemit-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08914854-spacemit-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The ticket with Fedora Legal needs to be resolved before this can land: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/652
License accepted.
...ping...
Thanks for the initial impulse, but its' been a month. I'll move back to new so someone else might feel inspired.
initial things picked up by fedora-review [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /lib/firmware [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /lib/firmware [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://gitee.com/bianbu- linux/buildroot- ext/raw/k1-bl-v2.2.y/board/spacemit/k1/target_overlay/lib/firmware/esos.elf See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ spacemit-firmware.noarch: W: no-documentation spacemit-firmware.spec: W: no-%check-section spacemit-firmware.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /lib/firmware/esos.elf
Gitee seems to require login to download releases. Maybe it is better to document this? See https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1451
I just tried this from an independent host/network , here in Bulgaria. # wget https://gitee.com/bianbu-linux/buildroot-ext/raw/k1-bl-v2.2.y/board/spacemit/k1/target_overlay/lib/firmware/esos.elf --2025-05-14 12:02:26-- https://gitee.com/bianbu-linux/buildroot-ext/raw/k1-bl-v2.2.y/board/spacemit/k1/target_overlay/lib/firmware/esos.elf Resolving gitee.com (gitee.com)... 180.76.198.77, 180.76.199.13, 180.76.198.225 Connecting to gitee.com (gitee.com)|180.76.198.77|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/plain] Saving to: ‘esos.elf’ esos.elf [ <=> ] 1.31M 254KB/s in 6.4s 2025-05-14 12:02:37 (211 KB/s) - ‘esos.elf’ saved [1376016]
- Add comment about gitee.com odd behavior with direct downloads Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware-20250417-3.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2089744 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8914854 to 9035857
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9035857 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360681-spacemit-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09035857-spacemit-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/spacemit-firmware/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
- Own /lib/firmware Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware-20250417-4.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2089747 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9035857 to 9035861
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9035861 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360681-spacemit-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09035861-spacemit-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/spacemit-firmware/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
-- Package older version of the esos firmware Newer and bigger esos.elf from 2.2 bianbu branches doesn't seem to work ok with the fedora remix kernels for K1/M1 boards. Stick to the old version until someone figures out the problems with the new one and needs something specific of its functionality. Also remove the stripping because the old one has somewhat reasonable size Pretend that the license introduced for the newer versions retroactively applies to the old version which was without one. -- Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware-20240829-4.fc43.src.rpm
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware-20240829-4.fc43.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/spacemit-firmware/spacemit-firmware-20240829-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2090926 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9035861 to 9066899
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9066899 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360681-spacemit-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09066899-spacemit-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/spacemit- firmware/licensecheck.txt [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 names). [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [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 %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: The latest version does not currently function properly. The issue is being looked into. For now the old version works as expected. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: No tests available [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. rpmlint output looks OK to me. I believe `arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /lib/firmware/esos.elf` can be overlooked. This is a riscv32 binary for the riscv32 MCU core, and is not intended to be run by/on the riscv64 OS/CPU. Rpmlint ------- Checking: spacemit-firmware-20240829-1.fc43.noarch.rpm spacemit-firmware-20240829-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphjur5mlo')] checks: 32, packages: 2 spacemit-firmware.noarch: W: no-documentation spacemit-firmware.spec: W: no-%check-section spacemit-firmware.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /lib/firmware/esos.elf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "spacemit-firmware". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://gitee.com/bianbu-linux/buildroot-ext/raw/k1-bl-v2.2.y/board/spacemit/k1/target_overlay/lib/firmware/LICENSE.spacemit_esos : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 43b0f671f9b5c17dd5977fe7584974a4481a14a677afd9b36aee6612c2c7fcc0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 43b0f671f9b5c17dd5977fe7584974a4481a14a677afd9b36aee6612c2c7fcc0 https://gitee.com/bianbu-linux/buildroot-ext/raw/bl-v2.0.y/board/spacemit/k1/target_overlay/lib/firmware/esos.elf : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c01fe09c31cadbdbe27d2f41ff851a532cfcf7270aaa1c98dd07a46787c07861 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c01fe09c31cadbdbe27d2f41ff851a532cfcf7270aaa1c98dd07a46787c07861 Requires -------- spacemit-firmware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- spacemit-firmware: spacemit-firmware Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name spacemit-firmware --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, Perl, Python, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spacemit-firmware
FEDORA-2025-0eed37cca1 (spacemit-firmware-20240829-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0eed37cca1
FEDORA-2025-0eed37cca1 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-0eed37cca1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0eed37cca1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-88390ee07d has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-88390ee07d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-88390ee07d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-88390ee07d (spacemit-firmware-20240829-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.