https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
Bug ID: 1424856 Summary: Review Request: comedilib - User space libraries for the Linux Control and Measurement Device Interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: daniel.naughton@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
The spec file and srpm can be found on COPR https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dnaughton/comedilib/
Description: User Space libraries for the Linux Control and Measurement Device Interface API from comedio.org Fedora Account System Username: dnaughton
These libraries along with kernel modules in "comedi" package also under review were in Fedora in 2008. I would like to make then current to the latest files on come.org and cleanup the rpm so it works on modern systems. F24+ and RHEL7+
Thanks for reviewing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- Please follow the Package Review Process documentation, and in particular, provide valid direct "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" links:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process [ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers ]
Then point the fedora-review tool at this ticket
fedora-review -b 1424856
and let it perform many checks that ought to be of interest to you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
--- Comment #2 from Dan Naughton daniel.naughton@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidjkrause/comedi-contec-rpm/master/come... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dnaughton/comedilib/fedora-2...
Updating Spec URL and SRPM URL, needed to run fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
--- Comment #3 from Dan Naughton daniel.naughton@gmail.com --- fedora-review has been run on the v2 spec and src.rpm, and identified some issues, so will be addressing those and posting a v3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
--- Comment #4 from Dan Naughton daniel.naughton@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidjkrause/comedi-contec-rpm/master/come... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dnaughton/comedilib/fedora-2...
Update to v3 with some fixes as a result of running fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
--- Comment #5 from Dan Naughton daniel.naughton@gmail.com --- Created attachment 1256993 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1256993&action=edit Output of fedora-review in fedora-rawhide-x86_64 mock
There are a few warnings here, but as far as I can tell, none are introduced by this RPM, and all come from the upstream comedilib package, and even then, none of those warnings or errors appear serious.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
none of those warnings or errors appear serious.
???
You want _your_ package to pass review. You need to adhere to the review guidelines and packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
The fedora-review tool has pointed out several issues with your package, which you ought to fix as a a start and as good practice. Otherwise there won't be any progress. The spec file is filled with packaging mistakes and pitfalls.
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=1424856
Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mmahut@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- What's the full story here anyway?
The "comedilib" package still exists within the package collection:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/comedilib/bugs/all
A package review request then makes no sense at all. Rather, you want to assign this to the "comedilib" and find out whether you could become a co-maintainer in case the existing package is out-of-date or semi-unmaintained.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
--- Comment #8 from Dan Naughton daniel.naughton@gmail.com --- Michael,
The current comedilib package is obsolete. It was missing the dependencies, including all the drivers to make it actually do anything. It actually depends on the comedi libraries which are not even built for Fedora/EPEL. I think it's been abandoned for 8+ years. I wanted to replace the comedilib and add the comedi package. (comedi is currently waiting review as well). I have a few hardware and software developers waiting to start using these, so I was hoping to get them working correctly, and put up the repo. Sorry for the confusing submission. I had forgotten about that abaondoned non-functioning comedlib package already in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
Dan Naughton daniel.naughton@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2017-03-02 12:45:12
--- Comment #9 from Dan Naughton daniel.naughton@gmail.com --- Removed package review request. Going to submit bug request for existing package as request to update source code and spec file. I will close this request out.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424856
Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net 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
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org