Spec URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/shim-signed/shim-signed.spec SRPM URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/shim-signed/shim-signed-0.2-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: shim bootloader signed by UEFI signing service Fedora Account System Username: pjones
rpmlint output: shim-signed.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-signed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-signed.src:5: W: macro-in-comment %{version} shim-signed.src:5: W: macro-in-comment %{release} shim-signed.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) shim-signed.spec:5: W: macro-in-comment %{version} shim-signed.spec:5: W: macro-in-comment %{release} shim-signed.spec:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) Probably ought to declare %global debug_package %{nil} . Other than that, everything looks good.
Okay, I've made that change. With that in mind: New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: shim-signed Short Description: UEFI shim bootloader signed by the UEFI signing service. Owners: pjones Branches: f18 InitialCC: mjg59
I rather think we may need some kind of exception to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries here. The binary is included as a source no?
The binary is built from the source code that's included in the package that this depends on, so I don't think the reasoning applies here.
The alternative is that we simply classify it as binary firmware - it meets all the listed criteria.
"mjg59" is not a valid FAS account.
My mistake: should be mjg59.org
Clarification, use a FAS account, not an email address.
(the fas account is "mjg59")
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to comment #5) > The alternative is that we simply classify it as binary firmware - it meets > all the listed criteria. Indeed it seems to. ;) Handy. Sounds reasonable to me...