Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/qdl.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/qdl-2.7-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: This tool communicates with Qualcomm EDL USB devices (Vendor ID 05c6, Product IDs 9008, 900e, 901d) to upload a flash loader and use it to flash images. Fedora Account System Username: jwrdegoede
I'm not a reviewer yet, but I suspect `BuildRequires: gcc` might be required.
(In reply to blacknon from comment #1) > I'm not a reviewer yet, but I suspect `BuildRequires: gcc` might be required. You're right, thank you. I was planning on doing a mockbuild to test BuildReqs before submitting, but then I got distracted and forgot. Doing a mockbuild now and it looks like here are more missing BuildReqs, so I'll fix those too.
New version with fixed BuildRequires: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/qdl.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/qdl-2.7-2.fc45.src.rpm
I have qdl packaged in the Terra repository, happy to remove it and see it in upstream, although there are a couple things from my spec you may want to port over to your spec (mainly using pkgconfig for BuildRequires, and using the %conf section) https://github.com/terrapkg/packages/blob/frawhide/anda/tools/qdl/qdl.spec
Hello @hans, It might be better to use %autorelease and %autochangelog in the spec file Release: %autorelease %changelog %autochangelog and no need to have git as buildrequires, could you please add this patch? https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/linux-msm/qdl/pull/257.patch
(In reply to Owen Zimmerman from comment #4) > I have qdl packaged in the Terra repository, happy to remove it and see it > in upstream, although there are a couple things from my spec you may want to > port over to your spec (mainly using pkgconfig for BuildRequires, and using > the %conf section) > https://github.com/terrapkg/packages/blob/frawhide/anda/tools/qdl/qdl.spec Thanks I've switched the BuildRequires to pkgconfig + moved the "%meson" call to a new "%conf" section.
(In reply to Ali Erdinc Koroglu from comment #5) > Hello @hans, > It might be better to use %autorelease and %autochangelog in the spec file > > Release: %autorelease > %changelog > %autochangelog Ack, done. Note since I was not tracking qdl.spec in git before this has reset the release field to 1. > and no need to have git as buildrequires, could you please add this patch? > https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/linux-msm/qdl/pull/257.patch As discussed in our 1:1 chat, I prefer to just keep the BuildRequires and add a comment to drop it at the next upstream release (done). Here is a new version with the changes requested by Owen and you: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/qdl.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/qdl-2.7-1.fc45.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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: [ ]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/aekoroglu/Devel/fedora/qdl/2488279-qdl/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 14909 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: qdl-2.7-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm qdl-2.7-1.fc45.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/tmpit3970qd')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qdl-debuginfo-2.7-1.fc45.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/tmpx53r9wk5')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linux-msm/qdl/archive/v2.7/qdl-2.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0eee137badceb8dfc6b2bc43af7223e5770d48be5eeab5c808c08cf1beb1de9a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0eee137badceb8dfc6b2bc43af7223e5770d48be5eeab5c808c08cf1beb1de9a Requires -------- qdl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libzip.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- qdl: qdl qdl(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2488279 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Python, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qdl Monitoring: Anitya project is accessible by this link `https://release-monitoring.org/project/157361` you can modify it manually. Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.
FEDORA-2026-64a715bfd2 (qdl-2.7-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-64a715bfd2
FEDORA-2026-64a715bfd2 (qdl-2.7-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-50137d2501 (qdl-2.7-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-50137d2501
FEDORA-2026-2a307577af (qdl-2.7-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-2a307577af
FEDORA-2026-50137d2501 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-2026-50137d2501 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-50137d2501 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-2a307577af has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-2a307577af \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-2a307577af See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-79f306dd0d has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-79f306dd0d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-79f306dd0d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-85b9c11a9d has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-85b9c11a9d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-85b9c11a9d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.