Bug 788806 - Package Review: g15tools - Support for the G15 in Linux
Package Review: g15tools - Support for the G15 in Linux
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
16
Unspecified Linux
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-02-08 21:54 EST by Thomas Pifer
Modified: 2012-02-09 15:14 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-02-09 15:12:49 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Thomas Pifer 2012-02-08 21:54:26 EST
SPEC, SRPM, and RPMS url: http://www.4shared.com/folder/TYX3V7_5/_online.html

If this URL is bad or an inconvenience to download from I'd be happy to re-upload everything. 

Description:

g15tools is a collection of libraries and programs that allow the use of the LCD and G-keys on the G15, G13 and other related keyboards made by Logitech.

There are a total of 3 packages which depend on each other: libg15, libg15render and g15daemon.

Both libg15 and libg15render are libraries that are necessary for g15daemon to run with g15daemon handling the LCD screen and G-keys.

Although all the packages are built, g15daemon is missing the udev rule/init script located in the contrib directory of the source because I am unsure if they should be added or are compatible with the latest Fedora release. (Using SysVinit, etc.)  Any help regarding them would be much appreciated. 

As this is my first package(s) I will also need a sponsor. 

Here are the rpmlint logs:

libg15:

$ rpmlint SRPMS/libg15-1.2.7-1.fc16.src.rpm 
libg15.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i libg15-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
libg15.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

$ rpmlint -i libg15-devel-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
libg15-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i libg15-debuginfo-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



libg15render:

$ rpmlint SRPMS/libg15render-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i libg15render-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i libg15render-devel-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
libg15render-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i libg15render-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


g15daemon:

$ rpmlint SRPMS/g15daemon-1.9.5.3-1.fc16.src.rpm 
g15daemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, Putin
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint g15daemon-1.9.5.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
g15daemon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, Putin
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint g15daemon-devel-1.9.5.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
g15daemon-devel.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libg15daemon_client.so.1.0.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint g15daemon-debuginfo-1.9.5.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2012-02-08 22:37:59 EST
Please submit one review ticket per submitted package.

I tried to download one of the specs to take a look, but man that 4shared thing is terrible.  Do you have a Fedora account already?  I can get you set up with fedorapeople space.
Comment 2 Thomas Pifer 2012-02-08 22:43:36 EST
N(In reply to comment #1)
> Please submit one review ticket per submitted package.

Ah OK, sorry about that.  Do you want me to change anything about the bug report?

> I tried to download one of the specs to take a look, but man that 4shared thing
> is terrible.  Do you have a Fedora account already?  I can get you set up with
> fedorapeople space.

No I do not.  It would be very much appreciated if you could help me with that.
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2012-02-08 23:25:28 EST
Not much I can do for you at this point; just sign up for an account as normal and then reply with the account ID you've chosen.  You should read through the entire https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join document, but see the "Get a Fedora Account" section specifically.

You'll need to open one ticket per package you're submitting.
Comment 4 Thomas Pifer 2012-02-09 08:21:03 EST
(In reply to comment #3)
> Not much I can do for you at this point; just sign up for an account as normal
> and then reply with the account ID you've chosen.  You should read through the
> entire https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join document, but see
> the "Get a Fedora Account" section specifically.
Done.  The account ID is: zero456.

> You'll need to open one ticket per package you're submitting.
I'm still a little confused, should I close this bug then and start over?
Comment 5 Jason Tibbitts 2012-02-09 14:40:38 EST
I have sponsored you into a group which gives you enough privileges to get fedorapeople access.  That should allow you to put your srpms and spec files where reviewers can actually get them.  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org has information on using the space.

You can also now do scratch builds in our buildsystem.

You'd definitely have to open two more tickets.  At this point it would probably be easiest to just abandon this ticket and open three more, one for each package.  Please use the standard format for review tickets: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-review

If the packages need to be reviewed in some order (i.e. they depend on each other in some way), you can indicate the ordering using the Depends on: and Blocks: fields.
Comment 6 Thomas Pifer 2012-02-09 15:12:49 EST
Understood.  Thanks for all your help!  Closing this bug and unblocking it.

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