Spec URL: http://pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec SRPM URL: http://pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-5.fc16.src.rpm Description: This is the current driver for ReinerSCT chipcard readers the vendor switched from ctapi to pcsc (dropping ctapi support completely as far as I can tell) and this causes some confusion, I think I got everything right but this package definitely needs more eyeballs. Until fox is in Fedora (and I'm not sure the license exceptions will make this possible), the package needs building 'withGUI 0'. AFAICT the GUI components are just a nice to have but not a functional requirement. I only use my reader very sparingly, in bug 767657 another user reported partial success.
needed a small patch for F17 (#include <unistd.h> for cm_distri.cpp kudos to karsten) new Spec URL: http://pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-6.fc17.src.rpm
uploaded -7 http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-7.fc16.src.rpm http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec changed /usr/share/man to %{_mandir} (thanks Than)
uploaded -8 http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-8.fc17.src.rpm now using systemd to do what 'service pcscd condrestart' did before Than: anything else I should look at on the spec file front?
rpmlint outputs: pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> con tactless, con-tactless, contact less pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> con tactless, con-tactless, contact less * i'm not sure if the descriptions are correct in en_US. Patrick, could you please check again? pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules * please add %config(noreplace) pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd-cyberjack.so * it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no devel package pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-documentation pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cjflash * your package doesn't have man pages, please ask upstream to add man page in the future, it's only should fix. pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_ascii.c pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_fpin2.c 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings * the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
Than, thanks. Much appreciated. Seems rpmlint on my build box is way less strict than it should be. (In reply to comment #8) > rpmlint outputs: [...] > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard -> chip card, > chip-card, chipboard the next release of the spec file will use 'chip card' [...] > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> > con tactless, con-tactless, contact less after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next release [...] > * i'm not sure if the descriptions are correct in en_US. Patrick, could you > please check again? You're right, they did need fixing. > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag > /etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules > > * please add %config(noreplace) done > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd- > cyberjack.so > > * it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no > devel package This one I am not sure about, I _think_ the .so needs to remain in that location (compare pcsc-lite-ccid). But it will need someone more competent in PC/SC than me to confirm. > pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-documentation > pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cjflash > > * your package doesn't have man pages, please ask upstream to add man page > in the future, it's only should fix. I've asked upstream via their web form. there is a small section about cjflash in the README.* files of the main package. As this sub-package depends on the main one, should I maybe add a README.Fedora to the sub-package that points to the main's README? > pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_ascii.c > pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_fpin2.c > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings > > * the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or [...] Also asked this from upstream. Do I remember correctly that I am NOT to patch these two files until upstream released an updated version or is it OK for me to patch the address in this version and then revert my patch once upstream fixed it?
FWIW: those things I already did fix are now uploaded. spec file at http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec and packages in http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-9/
(In reply to comment #9) > > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> > > con tactless, con-tactless, contact less > > after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next > release The dictionary that rpmlint uses obviously just doesn't know the technical term. No need to fix every single rpmlint warning; we don't have to make all packages rpmlint clean. This warning is rpmlint saying "Hey, I've noticed a possible issue with your package, please check if this needs fixing." > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag > > /etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules > > > > * please add %config(noreplace) I think this is wrong in two ways: a) the file isn't really meant to be modified by the user, and as such shouldn't be marked %config(noreplace); b) it should be installed in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ instead so that it's clear that it's a system file shipped by a package and not a config file that can be modified. So in this case rpmlint caught a valid issue but the fix isn't adding %config(noreplace), but instead moving the file to another directory. > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd- > > cyberjack.so > > > > * it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no > > devel package > > This one I am not sure about, I _think_ the .so needs to remain in that > location (compare pcsc-lite-ccid). But it will need someone more competent > in PC/SC than me to confirm. Yes. pcscd dlopens the .so file directly and it's needed for proper functioning. This .so file is a pcscd plugin. Another case of rpmlint warning about a possible issue but where we know better. > > * the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or > [...] > > Also asked this from upstream. > > Do I remember correctly that I am NOT to patch these two files until > upstream released an updated version or is it OK for me to patch the address > in this version and then revert my patch once upstream fixed it? Yes, never patch any license files. This is for upstream to change, not something a downstream packager should change. Notifying upstream and possibly sending them a patch that fixes up the license headers is the correct thing to do here. See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700095
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #9) [...] > > after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next > > release > > The dictionary that rpmlint uses obviously just doesn't know the technical > term. Ah, I meant 'I looked in the dictionary at leo.org and found non-contact better'. Merriam-Webster also agrees that contactless does not exist. I presume 'contactless' is a straight translation of the German 'kontaktlos'. [...] > a) the file isn't really meant to be modified by the user, and as such > shouldn't be marked %config(noreplace); > b) it should be installed in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ instead so that it's > clear that it's a system file shipped by a package and not a config file > that can be modified. [...] Agreed and moved in -10 spec file at http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec and mock build results in http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-9/fedora-17-x86_64/ and http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-9/fedora-18-x86_64/ Still unlear to me: pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash has no docs; should I maybe add a README.Fedora to the cjflash sub-package that points to the main package's README? PCFE
> Still unlear to me: > pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash has no docs; should I maybe add a README.Fedora to > the cjflash sub-package that points to the main package's README? > it's not needed in this case.
I don't see any further blockers, all looks fine now. This package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE once you have imported and built the package.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcsc-cyberjack Short Description: PC/SC driver for REINER SCT cyberjack USB chip card reader Owners: pcfe Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
package has been built for rawhide, f17-candidate and and f18-candidate http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=15223
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pcsc-cyberjack New Branches: el6 Owners: pcfe InitialCC: In Bug 901764 a build for el6 was requested and a spec file patch submitted. As expected, the package builds fine with "mock -r epel-6-x86_64 rebuild ..."
This Package Change Request is lacking fedora-cvs? no SCM action will ever happen while this is still staying on fedora-cvs+.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pcsc-cyberjack New Branches: epel7 Owners: pcfe
Reclosing ticket in an effort to clean up the queue