Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: dfu-util - USB Device Firmware Update tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Summary: Review Request: dfu-util - USB Device Firmware Update tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tuju@iki.fi QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util.spec SRPM URL: http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util-0.0svn4160-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: USB Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) is an official USB device class specification of the USB Implementers Forum. It specifies a vendor and device independent way of updating the firmware of a USB device. The idea is to have only one vendor-independent firmware update tool as part of the operating system, which can then (given a particular firmware image) be downloaded into the device.
In addition to firmware download, it also specifies firmware upload, i.e. loading the currently installed device firmware to the USB Host.
More information can be found from
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Dfu-util
This is my first package and I'm looking for sponsor.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #1 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-22 04:36:07 EDT --- Note that there is bug #211761 in review pipeline, but it has different upstream http://dfu-programmer.sourceforge.net/ and looks like they are different beasts. dfu-util is used in openmoko project.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://wiki.openmoko.org/wi | |ki/Dfu-util
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jreznik@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2008-09-22 06:16:54 EDT --- First quick look: - version mismatch * dfu-utils -V says dfu-util version 0.1+svnexported, newer SVN sets revision instead exported - Summary: ended with dot, see rpmlint - licence problem * dfu-util is GPLv2+ * dfu-backup is GPLv3 * SPEC file states GPLv2 * split package? use GPLv3? I don't know... - URL: I think better is http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Dfu-util (the SPEC's one is more generic, this one is for dfu-util program). - Source0: it's from SVN? so you should add comment how to obtain source codes... and better - ask upstream for proper release of 0.1 version - Source1: missing URL, where can I download it? and again, splitting packages should be option? - Requires: libusb is unneeded? - Description: "In addition to firmware..." line is too long, see rpmlint
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #3 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-22 09:17:45 EDT --- Btw, this package compiles just okay on x86_64, but is reported *not* to work properly and thus i386 arch binary should be used on x86_64 too as long that is solved. I'm not yet familar how it's done, probably with bodhi.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #4 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-22 09:20:53 EDT --- http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util-0.1-0.1.20080922svn4662.fc9.src.... http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util.spec
% rpmlint /home/tuju/PKGS/SRPMS/dfu-util-0.1-0.1.20080922svn4662.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- Version fixed. - Summary dot removed. - license fixed by dropping the dfu-backup. - url fixed. - Source0 fixed. - Source1 removed. - Description reshaped.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #5 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-22 09:25:14 EDT --- Comment #2:
- Requires: libusb is unneeded?
# rpm -q --requires dfu-util libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libusb libusb-0.1.so.4 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Yes, it's needed. Is there a problem with it? You mean it would do it with brp-requires automatically?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2008-09-22 09:49:18 EDT --- - I don't know how to solve x86_64 issues... You have to use ExcludeArch for not supported architectures. - Version should be GPLv2+ - Update Changelog release note - It's not building in mock/koji
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #7 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-22 10:31:52 EDT --- http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util-0.1-0.4.20080922svn4662.fc9.src.... http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util.spec
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=836151
rpmlint does not complain anymore.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jreznik@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #8 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-23 11:36:07 EDT --- kernel Opening USB Device 0x1d50:0x5119... Claiming USB DFU Runtime Interface... Determining device status: state = appIDLE, status = 0 Device really in Runtime Mode, send DFU detach request... Resetting USB... Opening USB Device... Found Runtime: [0x1d50:0x5119] devnum=40, cfg=0, intf=0, alt=3, name="kernel" Claiming USB DFU Interface... Setting Alternate Setting ... Determining device status: state = dfuIDLE, status = 0 dfuIDLE, continuing Transfer Size = 0x1000 bytes_per_hash=39279 Starting download: [##################################################] finished! state(2) = dfuIDLE, status(0) = No error condition is present Done! Resetting USB to switch back to runtime mode
testing, it works fine. ... Transfer Size = 0x1000 bytes_per_hash=1069547 Starting download: [##################################################] finished! state(2) = dfuIDLE, status(0) = No error condition is present Done! Resetting USB to switch back to runtime mode
that was rootfs. after boot attempt, the kernel wont start either.
$ arch;rpm -q dfu-util x86_64 dfu-util-0.1-0.5.20080922svn4662.fc9.i386
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #9 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-23 12:34:10 EDT --- okay, at least on 32bit fedora9 it works if: - write kernel - write rootfs - switch off + unplug USB cable - boot
booting straight from uboot does not work after rootfs download.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #10 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-09-23 12:42:53 EDT --- Also note that for some reason I need to boot through the u-boot menu using AUX button before powering up the device.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2008-10-04 10:12:16 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: FC-9 / i386 [x] Rpmlint output: clean [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Sources from SVN, commented properly in SPEC file. Diff againts sources in SRPM and sources download is OK. [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: x86_64, ppc64, sparc64 Why: upstream is broken for 64 bit architectures After approval fill bugs blocking FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: koji dist-fc8 dist-fc9 dist-fc10 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: koji dist-fc8 dist-fc9 dist-fc10 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane.
APROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #12 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-10-19 08:35:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=320799) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=320799) simple patch for spec file keep timestamp of man page
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #13 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-10-19 08:39:17 EDT --- Juha have you done any other work in fedora (comment on reviews, other submissions, and anything else)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com
--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-11-16 16:31:51 EDT --- Ping. Juha, you should move further (I mean, create cvs request, import into Fedora cvs, build, etc).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #15 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-11-19 09:12:16 EDT --- Pong. I'm active again.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #16 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2008-11-19 09:24:04 EDT --- fedora-cvs ? flag is not enough, you should to follow PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #17 from Juha Tuomala tuju@iki.fi 2008-11-19 09:30:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dfu-util Short Description: USB Device Firmware Upgrade tool Owners: tuju jreznik Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: tuju
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-11-22 23:16:11 EDT --- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-13 10:39:33 EDT --- dfu-util-0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dfu-util-0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc10
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-16 15:36:37 EDT --- dfu-util-0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dfu-util'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2693
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-02 13:10:15 EDT --- dfu-util-0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc1 | |0 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla