Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-ccid.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-ccid-1.4.0-3.fc15.src.rpm Description: Generic USB CCID (Chip/Smart Card Interface Devices) driver for use with the PC/SC Lite daemon. This is a review request for ccid -> pcsc-lite-ccid rename. For rationale why this is desired, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654377#c6 Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2648902
I'll review it.
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not silent: work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/pcsc-lite-ccid-* pcsc-lite-ccid.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides pcsc-ifd-handler ^^^ this is exactly what all other pcsc-lite backends(read pcsc-lite-openct ) should contain. So it's not an issue. pcsc-lite-ccid.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/85-pcscd_ccid.rules ^^^ this file is not intended to modify by user. pcsc-lite-ccid.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/ifd-ccid.bundle/Contents/Linux/libccid.so pcsc-lite-ccid.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/serial/libccidtwin.so ^^^ I suspect that these are plugins, so it's ok. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. work ~: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file MUST matche the actual license. The RSA_SecurID_getpasswd utility is licensed under GPLv2+. Parts of src/openct are licensed under MIT but it absorbs by LGPLv2+ which covers the rest of src/openct stuff, so you need to include only src/openct/LICENSE to meet the requirements. The file src/strlcpy.c is ISC licensed. So, please change License tag to GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ (probably with brief explanation whuich parts are covered by GPLv2+) and add src/openct/LICENSE to docs (rename it to something to avoid confusion - it covers only very limited set of sources. I'm not sure what to do with ISC-licensed stuff - the Guidelines explicitly mention that we need to add license only in case when upstream provides them in the separate file. On the contrary ISC license explicitly demands us to ship their licensing terms along with our derived product (Fedora rpm for pcsc-lite-ccid). This is a very minor issue, so I'd rather just ask upstream to do something with this in the further ccid releases. +/- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc (see my previous comments). + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum ccid-1.4.0.tar.bz2* a0b6e56c54f311c4cb39eef0f362e4e6d388bf815a15532e4524d2be1723b4ff ccid-1.4.0.tar.bz2 a0b6e56c54f311c4cb39eef0f362e4e6d388bf815a15532e4524d2be1723b4ff ccid-1.4.0.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, apply changes, suggested above, to License tag, and I'll continue.
Thanks for doing this, Peter. * Thu Dec 09 2010 Kalev Lember <kalev> - 1.4.0-4 - Install src/openct/LICENSE file as LICENSE.openct in docs (#660600) - Added 'and GPLv2+' to license tag to cover RSA_SecurID (#660600) Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-ccid.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-ccid-1.4.0-4.fc15.src.rpm
Ok, good, I can;'t find any other issues so this package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcsc-lite-ccid Short Description: Generic USB CCID smart card reader driver Owners: rrelyea kalev Branches: InitialCC: A special request for the SCM admin: This is a rename of an existing package, so I would like to keep the history if possible. When you are creating the new git repo, can you keep it initialized in empty state so I can push the existing history from ccid package's master branch? Thanks!
I do not know if the branch utilities will keep the repository uninitialized as you request, but I doubt it. Git done (by process-git-requests).
Imported and built for rawhide, closing the ticket.