https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
Bug ID: 1497594 Summary: Review Request: flashrom - Switch to using git snapshots Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: david.hendricks@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz3WBh8gVeIuZ3JGRWFndFIybFE SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz3WBh8gVeIuMFhqN0FidVhodUk Description: The Flashrom project recently switched to using Git with Gerrit which enables us to use convenient auto-generated snapshots.
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22203765
Fedora Account System Username: dhendrix
This is my first package submission, so I need a sponsor. Since my employer uses CentOS and this will be used for my work I plan to continue maintaining this package for the foreseeable future.
It's also worth noting that I'm a maintainer of the upstream flashrom project and have been involved with it since 2004 (https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/flashrom.git/commit/?id=3770a1132ee0e43836e...).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
David Hendricks david.hendricks@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I've just sponsored David.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mr.nuke.me@gmail.com, | |redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d | |e Component|Package Review |flashrom Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Since flashrom is already packaged, there is no need to go through a standard "new package" procedure. So I changed component to flashrom.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: flashrom - |Switch to using git |Switch to using git |snapshots for flashrom |snapshots |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
--- Comment #4 from David Hendricks david.hendricks@gmail.com --- Re #3: Good point - I moved the files to Dropbox which supports direct download links (no preview) and tested the following URLs using wget:
Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4wmjrqugrjito8c/flashrom.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/711bpatfyb251e1/flashrom-0.9.9-6.2017091...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
--- Comment #5 from Alex G. mr.nuke.me@gmail.com --- Hi David,
And welcome to the evil blue side.
It appears your specfile talks two the build system using two separate mechanisms. One is flashrom_cflags environment variable, and the other one is editing the Makefile.* on the-fly. For the sake of readability, you should chose one mechanism and stick to it. I'm not sure if the flashrom buildsystem needs modifications to support this, but since you are the upstream maintainer, I'm certain this is trivial for you to do.
$(echo "VERSION=%{shortcommit}" > Makefile.version) $(echo "MAN_DATE=$(date -u "+%Y-%m-%d")" >> Makefile.version)
This will give the date of whenever a package was built, not when the software was last released/modified, which I assume is the intention of this variable. Different packages (x64, x86, arm ,etc) end up with different values here, because they are not built at the same time.
My third point is that I'm not convinced it's good practice to package snapshots. I understand upstream's desire for users to always have the latest git, however, from a package maintainer point of view, we prefer upstream releases over snapshots. If you think that flashrom is adding features at a fast pace, I believe it would be smarter to have upstream releases at shorter intervals.
Hope this helps.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497594
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org