SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: The UFS Tool project have been created to allow access UFS device from user space, and perform basic set of UFS operations: Read and write UFS device configuration (flags, attributes, descriptors), FFU, etc... The set of UFS Tool features is co-existing and updated beside BSG and SG infrastructure in Linux Kernel. FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138774110 Reproducible: Always
> Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > Patch1: ufs-utils-fix-build.patch Fix alignment of argument > BuildRequires: make > BuildRequires: gcc Sort lines > %install > mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} > install -p ufs-utils %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} Can be one line: install -D -p -m0755 ufs-utils %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/ufs-utils
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2 ---------------------------------------------------- ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/README.md ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_arpmb.c BSD 3-Clause Clear License and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_emon.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_emon.h BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/hmac_sha2.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/hmac_sha2.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/sha2.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/sha2.h GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------- ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/COPYING ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/Makefile ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ioctl.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/options.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/options.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/scsi_bsg_util.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/scsi_bsg_util.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_cmds.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_cmds.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_err_hist.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_err_hist.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_ffu.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_ffu.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_hmr.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_hmr.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_rpmb.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_rpmb.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_vendor.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_vendor.h ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/unipro.c ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/unipro.h Unknown or generated -------------------- ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md [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. [x]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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 3156 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/SanDisk-Open- Source/ufs-utils/archive/7.14.12/ufs-utils-7.14.12.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ Working url: https://github.com/SanDisk-Open-Source/ufs-utils/archive/refs/tags/v7.14.12.tar.gz [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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 $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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmps4h_i_aj')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ufs-utils.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING ufs-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ufs-utils ufs-utils.spec: W: no-%check-section ufs-utils.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0 ufs-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0 ufs-utils.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ufs-utils-debuginfo-7.14.12-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpakblnshe')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ufs-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 2 ufs-utils.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING ufs-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ufs-utils ufs-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0 ufs-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0 ufs-utils.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Requires -------- ufs-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ufs-utils: ufs-utils ufs-utils(x86-64) Summary: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 See above. - Source url seems incorrect. - COPYING file should have mode 0644 and fix invalid fsf address
> - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'. > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 > See above. > - Source url seems incorrect. > - COPYING file should have mode 0644 and fix invalid fsf address Updated except the address, I've filed a ticket upstream for the project to do that (https://github.com/SanDisk-Open-Source/ufs-utils/issues/80). SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils-7.14.12-2.fc43.src.rpm
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils-7.14.12-2.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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9787002 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2413094-ufs-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09787002-ufs-utils/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.
Thanks for quick reply, package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ufs-utils
(In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #7) > Thanks for quick reply, Thanks for the review.
FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc (ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc
FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc (ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.