Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: axel.thimm@atrpms.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware-fedora.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware-20070217-13.src.rpm Description: This package contains the firmware for WinTV PVR 250/350/150/500 cards.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kwizart@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-08-24 14:48 EST ------- So, found it !
We should probably block requirement at the bugzilla level (if it needs for exemple ivtv and perls scripts) I've found ivtv but not perls scripts whereas they are still Required by ivtv ivtv is here #250971
From preliminaries comments :
1- Requirements: Check if it is necessay for the firmware to requires ivtv (or ivtv to requires the firmware..)- then set the appropriate blocks in bugzilla
2- We should drop compats locations to only provides firmwares in /lib/firmware for F7 -> devel
3- Buildroot: those are others values but the one choosen is acceptable also... %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
4- ivtv-firmware.spec is the name of the spec (this is the case from the src.rpm so everything is right...)
5- Version field is wrong: 20070217 you be taken from a release tag. If we have 0 in a version tag, I think it is acceptable to have release tag not <1. This leads to have: epoch: 3 version: 0 release: 1.%{snapshoot}snap 3:0-1.20070217snap Using this if upstream ever provides version 1.0 of the firmware or else, this scheme will continue to work...
6- setup -n %{name}-%{version} is unneeded at this time, but it will more likely have to be replaced by -n %{name}-%{snapshot}
7- /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg is also a requirement but is arch independant and could benefit to be bundled from an arch independant package instead of ivtv (which one is arch dependant) - Anyway as we shouldn't be concerned by multilibs problems with ivtv, this shouldn't be really important...
8- mv *.fw %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/ - you should better use install -pm 0644 to prevent timestamp.
9- A license to allow redistribution of the firmware is missing from the package... Theres is Licenses files from the firmware archive and they need to be provided in the %doc directory.
I'm not abble to state if this license allow Fedora to redistribute the firmware within an iso so users can uses ivtv "out of the box"...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-08-24 14:57 EST ------- 10 - URL produced a 404
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2007-08-26 14:55 EST ------- Ok, my take (not a full review since that's already started, just a few additions/confirmations)
1. there is a lot of legacy garbage in the spec (symlinks, deps, epochs, etc). ivtv took enough time to get cleanly upstream, IMHO the supporting packages need the same cleanup too. Cleaning up later will be painful and users expect some changes at Fedora inclusion time
2. URL should be http://www.ivtvdriver.org/
3. I'd simplify %install in %install rm -rf %{buildroot} install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}/lib/firmware install -p -m 0644 *.fw *.mpg %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/
4. I'd simplify %files in %files %defattr(0755,root,root,0644) %doc *.txt /lib/firmware/*.fw /lib/firmware/*.mpg
5. I'd add a %build, even if it's empty, because %build-less specs are not tested against @rpm.org
6. I'd change the summary to only include the actual chip reference and out the full "… for hardware based on Conexant's CX23415/CX23416 codec chip such as the Hauppauge PVR 150/250/350/500 models and other supported hardware." in %description, as the current string is misleading and overly restrictive
7. the deps if any should go in the tools not in the firmware package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms. | |net)
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-09-06 12:18 EST ------- Axel are you still here ? Please comments if something seems wrong to you...
Maybe someone can help packaging perl scripts if you are short in time ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Flag|needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms.| |net) |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA |
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-10-24 07:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
Axel are you still here ? Please comments if something seems wrong to you...
I was not there, see the matching wiki page of that time.
Maybe someone can help packaging perl scripts if you are short in time ?
Perl scripts for the firmware package? Which firmware related scripts are you thinking of?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-10-24 07:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
- I'd change the summary to only include the actual chip reference and out the
full "… for hardware based on Conexant's CX23415/CX23416 codec chip such as the Hauppauge PVR 150/250/350/500 models and other supported hardware." in %description, as the current string is misleading and overly restrictive
There are technical and legal problems:
a) the firmware is procuded by Hauppauge (with Conexant's tools) and is adjusted to Hauppauge's board layout. Not every board using the Mako chip can boot of the same firmware.
b) Even though many boards share the base schematics the firmware under considerartion has been channeled through Hauppauge and the license is by Hauppauge. IANAL, but I think you will be violating both Hauppauge's and another manufacturer's license if you simply use this on another board.
This is not to say that users cannot use this if they think they know there are no technical issues and no legal ones as well. But it means that Fedora cannot put itself in technical and legal battles with either side.
BTW no non-Hauppauge user was ever confused by the choice of the summary or description, all PVR clones knew what firmware they needed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-10-24 13:15 EST ------- Axel! I'm happy to have news from you!
But actually I would like the problem to be solved before the F8 release, so i've took some advance: see #346171
I will change the summary from the problem you have raised, add an epoch (or can we drop it?) and add you to the cvs access (or you might need to request it )
Please can you make comments about the current spec I've used , before I import it ? (ivtv-firmware and xorg-x11-drv-ivtv are not imported yet)...
see also: #346161 for xorg-x11-drv-ivtv
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-10-24 13:49 EST ------- I don't think that this rushing out was a good move. There was a reason I kept packages compatible to what ATrpms is shipping for four year plus now. I'm also strongly involved upstream (I even both own and host the main developer and user site) and Fedora's credo was to keep upstream as much packaging as possible, correct?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-10-26 02:23 EST ------- http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware-20070217-15.src.rpm http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware.spec
* Wed Oct 24 2007 Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net - 2:20070217-15 - Add v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg as a pseudo-firmware.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-10-26 09:25 EST ------- OK well I still do not understand why we should keep old version compatibility ? Because of the license, the firmware can only be provided since Fedora 7 (not for FC6). This mean why should we keep old compatibility firmware location ?...
The main problem with that is the current package conflict with "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard" and directory ownership may be wrong if those directory do not exist anymore: %{_sysconfdir}/firmware/*.fw %{_libdir}/hotplug/firmware/*.fw
- Please keep timestamps as this is an easy fix - Do what you think is right for symlink and version (note that the ubuntu package from the upstream site uses version 0-%{date} )...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms. | |net)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-11-08 10:49 EST ------- Still no news...?!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms.| |net) |
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-11-29 11:56 EST ------- What news should I be offering? I disagree with both the takeover mentality and the wish to drop compatibility to established usage over half a decade now. Sure, drop compatibility when it's in the way, but not for just dropping it.
The same package works under RHEL3 for example ...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-11-29 15:08 EST ------- Axel,I wouldn't ask you if you have some news if I just want to takeover the package... nothing as been imported yet.
This is not a aim by itself to have a package that will be usable from RHEL3 to F-9. For example we do not use the hotplug directory anymore, nor is possible to have compatibility firmwares locations since they are not used within Fedora (since kernel 2.6.22).
What is wrong in this package are directory ownership, This must be fixed... (even if this is a minor thing)
Then any third part package can provided the needed compatibility firmware locations (if ever a third part repo will package an older version of the ivtv's kernel modules).
Also it is really desirable to prevent timestamps changes while packaging the the files provided...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms. | |net)
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-12-12 07:23 EST ------- ping ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms.| |net) |
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-12-12 09:59 EST ------- Note that the timestamps are not original. When I wrote the license on Haupauge's behalf I also asked if I could pick the original files and that is not possible due to internal reasons. So the timestamps that the files have on both of my sites, ivtvdriver.org and atrpms.net are the ones from the extraction time, not any upstream time.
Despite of that I agree it is better for people learning by reading specfiles to keep timestamps otherwise they will be copying wrong idioms.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-12-15 07:17 EST ------- Well, I'm not sure if I understand: do you agree to keep timestramp in the next release ? timestamps could be a problem with delta rpms when changes are not made to the firmware but they have not keepted from "original" source files.
Keeping the timestamps from the original package gives more info. For example this indicate that the files wasn't modified since years instead of when the package was build on our Build system.
As soon as you update to the new release i will change cvs so you can import it Maybe you could use conditionals for compatibility firmware locations so we it get rebuild on a EL-3 or FC-4 system, it it have the compatibility part...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-12-22 07:17 EST ------- OK, your timestamp comment was a red herring, I should had checked earlier. All timestamps had already "original" from the beginning:
# ls -ltrAd `rpm -ql ivtv-firmware` | grep -v lrwxrwxrwx -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 16382 May 26 2006 /lib/firmware/v4l-cx25840.fw -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 262144 May 26 2006 /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 155648 May 26 2006 /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8192 Jul 1 2006 /lib/firmware/v4l-pvrusb2-29xxx-01.fw -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8192 Oct 6 2006 /lib/firmware/v4l-pvrusb2-24xxx-01.fw -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 376836 Feb 17 2007 /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2007-12-24 10:00 EST ------- I will check again this week. But I wonder It will work if rebuilt in mock (it should work like this in all cases anyway...)
Also about the compat section... Do you have something against building with Fedora conditionnals? So, if build tag is from Fedora 7 (or older, depend on last time hotplug was used). then the entire compat part will be dropped. (so the same spec will be used for all version).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-12-26 06:15 EST ------- Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware-20070217-15.1.src.rpm
* Sat Dec 22 2007 Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net - 2:20070217-15.1 - Own directories from legacy paths.
This addresses the following comment further up:
What is wrong in this package are directory ownership, This must be fixed... (even if this is a minor thing)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-01-02 10:33 EST ------- Happy New Year Axel!
(In reply to comment #19)
This addresses the following comment further up:
What is wrong in this package are directory ownership, This must be fixed... (even if this is a minor thing)
I think you miss me, your package cannot own directories that are targeted to the filesystem, that's why I think it is better to remove them. That way, the package will be good for the next half decade (as i expect). That been said, keeping compat location are fine for RHEL4 and RHEL5, (if this make sense to have them, but i don't think so as your repository have 0.10.6 for RHEL5 and 2.6.18 kernels)... But for the currently supported Fedora version (since Fedora 7 and Rawhide), I don't see any reason for keeping them... since we use kernel 2.6.22 and later...
About preventing timestamps, you are right so this is fine as it is...
What remain are: - compat location problem. - no Doc are provided (this is mandatory to have them when they are provided within the package: license-oemihvisv.txt and license-end-user.txt - so probably both are needed). All others points raised in this review are acceptable...
So to avoid conflict with the compat location problem I will try to ask advices from others reviewers as: - I don't see any reason to keep them as this will be useful only for older version of the ivtv kernel module that I expect not to build against current Fedora kernels. - Fedora version that still use hotplug can have an older ivtv-firmware version (as such I can agree to have a build conditional to provide them with older Fedora version but not with the currently supported Fedora - Or to have different specs in cvs branches for RHEL4/5 and Fedora) - No userland application (in Fedora or elsewhere) really needs theses compat location in currently maintained Fedora versions. - Theses compat locations produce ownership directory problems , as such deprecated location must be cleaned from the package.
If you disagree with some of theses points, please explain why.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-01-09 21:46 EST ------- It would be fine to have this fixed for the alpha for F-9...
I mean before 15/01/2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms. | |net)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From tuju@iki.fi 2008-01-10 05:20 EST ------- Speaking of targets, hopefully this will see daylight in f8 too as f9 is still quite far away.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE Flag|needinfo?(axel.thimm@atrpms.| |net) |
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-02 05:53 EST -------
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 346171 ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DUPLICATE |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwizart@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-02-02 16:17 EST ------- *** Bug 346171 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-02-02 17:14 EST ------- The compat bits don't harm and they do cater now for their removal by rpm itself once the package is commissioned to be deinstalled.
The licenses have been placed next to firmware location, although I removed that specific wording when writing the licenses. But let's not split hairs.
Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware-20070217-16.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-04 05:26 EST ------- Axel, I see no improvement about the compat location field with this version.
I've learn that when ivtv was in work to be merged within the kernel, they was a problem because it was using it owns firmware loader, instead of the one within the kernel. Actually the compat needs may not be related to using hotplug or else, but using the firmware loader of an older ivtv version when it wasn't merged in yet.
I don't knwow the status of userland app (mythtv), that can use the kernel version or the "external" version.
Am I right ? or the compat location is only related to have the same package for all dist ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-02-14 14:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #26)
I see no improvement about the compat location field with this version.
Any "issues" whatsoever with the compatibility with RHEL have been resolved, I would call that improvement.
I don't see compatibility with RHEL a blocker, why do you resist passing this package?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-18 19:26 EST ------- I don't understand! You mean you want to maintain this package for RHEL via EPEL ? I don't even know which kernel is there.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-02-19 05:16 EST ------- If you don't even know what kernel resides in RHEL, why not simply trust me on that or investigate that the same firmware applies ...
At any rate the compatibility bits do not hurt and people can only benefit from it. Please either pass this package or stop stalling.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |INSUFFICIENT_DATA
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-19 09:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #29)
If you don't even know what kernel resides in RHEL, why not simply trust me on that or investigate that the same firmware applies ...
Because a review isn't a matter of blind trust but questions/answears. Questions are here, answears not.
At any rate the compatibility bits do not hurt and people can only benefit from it. Please either pass this package or stop stalling.
Well the review have been approved here: #346171 is now imported into cvs and will hit stable on next push.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA |
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-02-19 10:36 EST ------- Bug #346171 is a rogue takeover.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
skvidal@linux.duke.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |skvidal@linux.duke.edu
------- Additional Comments From skvidal@linux.duke.edu 2008-02-19 16:09 EST ------- NOTE: I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD I AM ONLY SPEAKING FOR ME.
Nicolas: you're not being cool. Don't play this game on a single package Axel: Don't talk down to Nicolas - or at least that's how I'm perceiving it. Answer the questions he has.
Seriously, play nice.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-02-20 04:14 EST ------- The problem is that these questions are just for stalling. For example in comment #20 the reviewer already showed that he knows which kernels are in RHEL5 for example and now pretends that he doesn't and wants to spin the discussion into something else.
FWIW the kernels in RHEL3-5 are based on 2.4.21/2.6.9/2.6.18, but the version of the base kernel does not say much about what capabilities the kernels have as especially RHEL3/4 kernels are heavily patched compared to upstream. Well, that technically answers the last question the reviewer posed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwizart@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-20 06:53 EST -------
From #20 That been said, keeping compat location are fine for RHEL4 and RHEL5, (if this make sense to have them, but i don't think so as your repository have 0.10.6 for RHEL5 and 2.6.18 kernels)...
Let me rephrase: EPEL may need packages to be functional by itself. ivtv-firmware is missing the needed kernel module. It is possible to use ivtv-kmdl from any third part repo to use ivtv-firmware. But using ivtv-firmware alone is pointless. At this time ivtv.ko hasn't been backported for last RHEL kernels AFAIK. Note that if it was done or requested this would make the compat-location pointless. I leave the decition about epel to another reviewer anyway...
So to sum-up, if any of the people involved in the EPEL repository accept this package, i have nothing against preventing axel to own epel-4 and epel-5 branches. (just ask and i will request cvs for epel-4 and epel-5 once approved by someone else).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-02-20 07:14 EST ------- This has nothing to do with an EPEL branch, I submitted a Fedora package that is compatible to RHEL, and that's what I want to maintain - tthe whole idea was not to have to do split branches at all. You can't simply go around stealing other people's packages - you will have to step down from ownership if you want this to deescalate.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
jwilson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jwilson@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From jwilson@redhat.com 2008-02-21 17:18 EST ------- So... I've been asked to step in and be the mediator here, since I've not been involved in the debate at all. Though full disclosure: I do have past history as a contributor to Axel's ATrpms.net repo, and know a fair amount about the work he's put in to get to the point where we (fedora) could actually distribute an ivtv-firmware package. I'm still reading over everything on the matter (the bugs, some emails, fesco meeting notes, etc), and will give some feedback soonish...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
jwilson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: ivtv- |Review Request: ivtv- |firmware - Firmware for the |firmware - Firmware for the |PVR 250/350/150/500 model |PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 |series |model series
------- Additional Comments From jwilson@redhat.com 2008-02-22 16:48 EST ------- Okay. So I've read over everything, including both spec files. For the most part, I believe this boils down to a misunderstanding that has simply escalated out of control. Whether or not the fact the two individuals have histories of contributing to 3rd-party package repos that themselves have a history of conflict somehow contributed more fuel to the fire, I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt it...
Anyhow, I understand Nicolas' frustration for his review comments being dismissed, as well as Axel's frustration over Nicolas going and submitting his own review. Honestly, I think BOTH of you are in the wrong here, to some extent.
Nicolas, I'm not wild about seeing a competing review submitted for the very same package you were already the primary reviewer on, especially given that Axel posted that he was on vacation (though apparently, you were unaware of this). It does feel a bit like hostile takeover. I understand wanting to get the package into the distro asap, but still, it wasn't the most courteous thing. If your problems with Axel's package can be resolved, I think you ought to relinquish ownership back to Axel.
Axel, I'm still not wild about your spec file and all the legacy crud its going to lay down on a clean Fedora system. Nicolas' objections to your version are entirely valid. However, they're quite easily remedied in a way that doesn't break RHEL compatibility. Simply wrap those sections of the spec with '%if 0%{?rhel}', which a number of other packages using shared specs between fedora and epel do. The license files really could use renaming too, generic license file names in a system-wide firmware directory are not cool. Pretty sure the license doesn't prevent renaming those files to something less generic (such as is done in Nicolas' spec). Using mv to transfer files from the sourcedir to the buildroot also doesn't sit well with me, the sourcedir should be left intact. Use either install or cp instead. PVR-USB2 firmware is also included, should be mentioned in the description and summary.
So yeah, as I've already hinted... Going forward, I believe Axel should be the owner and primary maintainer of this package *if his version can pass review*. My reasoning, beyond what I've already said:
1) Axel submitted the package for review first, didn't abandon it (though it may have seemed like it to the casual observer), and he's still working on it. Abandoned package takeover guidelines don't apply here, since Axel did leave proper notice that he was on vacation (well, moving, actually).
2) Axel basically *is* upstream for this package, and did all the legwork to make it even *possible* for fedora to package it and distribute it. Ripping it out from under him at the last minute simply isn't cool.
3) Axel has also submitted the ivtv userspace for review. It depends on this package. Having the same maintainer for both of these packages only makes sense.
Of course, as stated, this is all assuming Axel does address the remaining *valid* issues Nicolas (and myself and others) have with his version of the package. If these issues aren't resolved by the time Fedora 9 beta release hits the streets[*], then we stay with the current situation with Nicolas' package and him as owner/primary maintainer.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Hopefully, we can put this mess to rest and all move along with our lives, to things far more interesting than packaging up firmware for devices that are quickly approaching obsolescence. Thank you, and good night.
[*] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/Schedule says March 13.
Suggested changes to Axel's spec in diff form, which would satisfy my own complaints with his version:
--- ivtv-firmware.spec.orig 2008-02-22 14:44:51.000000000 -0500 +++ ivtv-firmware.spec 2008-02-22 15:39:12.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ %define version_enc 2.06.039 %define version_dec 2.02.023
-Summary: Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series +Summary: Firmware for the Hauppauge PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series Name: ivtv-firmware Version: 20070217 Release: 16 @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Obsoletes: %{name}-enc < %{version_enc} Provides: %{name}-enc = %{version_enc}
%description -This package contains the firmware for WinTV PVR 250/350/150/500 cards. +This package contains the firmware for Hauppauge WinTV PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 cards.
%prep %setup -q -c @@ -31,10 +31,15 @@ This package contains the firmware for W rm -rf %{buildroot} mkdir -p %{buildroot}/lib/firmware
-mv *.fw %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/ -mv v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg -mv license-*.txt %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/ +cp -p *.fw %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/ +cp -p v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg +# license requires that the licenses go in the same place as the firmware +for f in license-*.txt +do + cp -p $f %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/%{name}-$f +done
+%if 0%{?rhel} # compatibility firmware locations for dir in %{_sysconfdir}/firmware %{_libdir}/hotplug/firmware /lib/modules; do mkdir -p %{buildroot}$dir @@ -47,16 +52,19 @@ ln -s /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg ln -s /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw %{buildroot}/lib/modules/ivtv-fw-enc.bin ln -s /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw %{buildroot}/lib/modules/ivtv-fw-dec.bin ln -s /lib/firmware/v4l-cx25840.fw %{buildroot}/lib/modules/HcwMakoA.ROM +%endif
%clean rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files %defattr(-,root,root,-) +%doc license-*.txt /lib/firmware/*.fw /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg -/lib/firmware/license-*.txt +/lib/firmware/%{name}-license-*.txt
+%if 0%{?rhel} # compatibility firmware locations %dir %{_sysconfdir}/firmware %{_sysconfdir}/firmware/*.fw @@ -70,6 +78,7 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot} /lib/modules/ivtv-fw-dec.bin /lib/modules/ivtv-fw-enc.bin /lib/modules/HcwMakoA.ROM +%endif
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-23 10:36 EST ------- I agree with what is written upper. I will completely release ownership of this package then. (including removal of my spec to replace it with the Axel's one, when Approved).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-03-05 20:56 EST ------- Axel spec has been updated... I will release ivtv-firmware owership as request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
jwilson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From jwilson@redhat.com 2008-03-11 11:15 EST ------- http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware.spec http://dl.atrpms.net/all/ivtv-firmware-20070217-17.src.rpm
All requested changes (and then some -- compat bits are completely removed, rather than just %if %{?rhel}'d out) have been made, new spec is acceptable for Fedora.
APPROVED.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ivtv-firmware Updated Fedora Owners: athimm Updated Fedora CC: jwilson kwizart
Nicolas is relinquishing ownership and we're handing it over to Axel.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-03-12 01:11 EST ------- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org