Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ff-utils - Utilities to test force feedback of input device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556128
Summary: Review Request: ff-utils - Utilities to test force feedback of input device Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rebus@seznam.cz QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://rebus.webz.cz/d/ff-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.webz.cz/d/ff-utils-2.4.21-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Set of utilities provides possibility to test force feedback of input devices like joysticks, gamepads or gamewheels in linux.
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=556128
--- Comment #1 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2010-01-16 12:29:32 EST --- Result of the rpmlint ff-utils-2.4.21-1.fc12.src.rpm ff-utils-2.4.21-1.fc12.i686.rpm ff-utils-debuginfo-2.4.21-1.fc12.i686.rpm:
ff-utils.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Package really doesn't contain any documentation, not even license. License is directly mentioned in the source files.
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=556128
--- Comment #2 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2010-01-16 12:34:37 EST --- This is my first package for fedora so it would be great if somebody could sponsor me.
Thank you Michal Ambroz
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=556128
Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=556128
timlank timlank@timlank.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |timlank@timlank.com
--- Comment #3 from timlank timlank@timlank.com 2010-01-21 13:55:04 EST ---
I'm trying to get sponsored for the first time also... from the reading, I think I need to make sure I try to help out others by doing some reviewing of my own....
I've been looking at yours and I was wondering if the SDL-devel package among potentially many others are required in the %BuildRequires area of the .spec.
I tried to build this on a bare bones f12 system and ended up needing to install about 40 rpms before getting the SDL & SDL-devel package to install -and then I could successfully build ff-utils. I can provide the list if it helps.
Thanks, Tim
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=556128
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-01-21 15:24:34 EST --- Yes, it is a very good idea to become involved in the whole review process and help each other out. You probably don't want to actually build packages directly on your system however. Either install mock and use that to build locally, or do scratch builds in the Fedora buildsystem (koji). Anyone with a Fedora account can use the buildsystem.
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=556128
--- Comment #5 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2010-01-24 14:38:35 EST --- Spec URL: http://rebus.webz.cz/d/ff-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.webz.cz/d/ff-utils-2.4.21-2.fc12.src.rpm
based on review from Tim (thank you Tim!) I have added the build requirement for the SDL-devel package to be present during the build.
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=556128
Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
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=556128
--- Comment #6 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2010-04-18 13:37:47 EDT --- Hello Tim, Are you going to review this package? I have seen that you are already sponsored. Same here. Maybe we could finalize the review. Michal
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=556128
--- Comment #7 from Thibault North thibault.north@gmail.com 2010-04-18 13:57:06 EDT --- Hi there,
Just to confirm that this package (2.4.21-2) works for me using the Wingman Force 3D (i can get force feedback), but not for a Wingman Force (older).
F-12, i686
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=556128
--- Comment #8 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2010-04-18 14:03:40 EDT --- I have done some cleanup of the macros.
SPEC URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/fedora/12/SPECS/ff-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/fedora/12/SRPMS/ff-utils-2.4.21-3.fc12.src.rpm
Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint ff-utils-2.4.21-3.fc12.src.rpm ff-utils-2.4.21-3.fc12.i686.rpm ff-utils-debuginfo-2.4.21-3.fc12.i686.rpm ff-utils.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - Project really doesn't contain any documentation.
Koji build for F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2123776 Koji build for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2123781
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=556128
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |msuchy@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |msuchy@redhat.com 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=556128
--- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2010-11-01 16:02:29 EDT --- ff-utils.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %doc it is probably better to delete that coments entirely
ff-utils.i686: W: no-documentation ff-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffcfstress ff-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmvforce ff-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fftest ff-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffset
You should either create some documentation - something like: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/libff/index.php?title=CheckForceFeedba...
Or you should write man page. If you are not fan of docbook, you can use http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/ You create txt file like this http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/asciidoc.1.txt and in %build just call: a2x -d manpage -f manpage fftest.8.asciidoc and in install: %{__gzip} -c fftest.8 > %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8/fftest.8.gz
Your spec state license GPLv2+, but http://sourceforge.net/projects/libff/ state License: GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
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=556128
--- Comment #10 from Didier Moens didier.moens@dmbr.ugent.be 2010-12-02 13:57:54 EST --- ff-utils has not been updated since October 2003.
Could you please consider applying the submitted patch from http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2098907&gro... ?
This patch ports ff-utils to 64-bit (32-bit compatible), and adds kernel 2.6 compatibility.
The patch applies cleanly (when removing the cflags patch), and actually makes ff-utils usable on x64 architecture with modern kernels.
(tested with kernel-2.6.35.6-48.fc14.x86_64)
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=556128
--- Comment #11 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2011-04-11 11:06:12 EDT --- I am sorry guys - I totally forgot about this package. Updated package can be found at: SPEC: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ff-utils.spec SRPM: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm
- added manpages from debian joystick package - added patch as suggested by Didier
Your spec state license GPLv2+, but http://sourceforge.net/projects/libff/ state License: GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
In my opinion the license in distributed code really matters and there is GPLv2+ in all 4 source files.
Here is log from Koji scratch build for i686 and x86_64 for the rawhid - seems to be fine. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2993182 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 2993182 build (dist-f16, ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm): open (ppc08.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2993184 buildArch (ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm, i686): free 2993183 buildArch (ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): free 2993184 buildArch (ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm, i686): free -> open (x86-10.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2993183 buildArch (ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> open (x86-15.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2993183 buildArch (ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-15.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 1 done 0 failed 2993184 buildArch (ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm, i686): open (x86-10.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 2 done 0 failed 2993182 build (dist-f16, ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc14.src.rpm): open (ppc08.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 3 done 0 failed
Best regards Michal Ambroz
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=556128
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2011-05-20 09:44:10 EDT --- rpmlint errors: ff-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ff-utils/ffmvforce.c ff-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ff-utils/ffset.c ff-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ff-utils/fftest.c
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
==============
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 in: f16/koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3083368 [!] Rpmlint output: see above [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [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. $ md5sum ff-utils.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/ff-utils.tar.bz2 37f5197aa38362cac1364d3d9f409912 ff-utils.tar.bz2 37f5197aa38362cac1364d3d9f409912 ../SOURCES/ff-utils.tar.bz2 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [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. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] 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 -fR $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. [x] 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. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] 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. 2.4.21 [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 scratch build [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on:koji scratch build [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the tests pass
I would say that the rpmlint error is not blocking, but please contact upstream and fix the FSF address.
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
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=556128
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(rebus@seznam.cz)
--- Comment #13 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2011-08-08 10:05:59 EDT --- ping. any reason why did you did not request for branch in git?
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=556128
--- Comment #14 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2011-09-27 10:05:49 EDT --- ping?
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=556128
Tim Niemueller tim@niemueller.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tim@niemueller.de
--- Comment #15 from Tim Niemueller tim@niemueller.de 2011-11-12 11:07:12 EST --- Just needed this and would like to see it included.
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=556128
Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(rebus@seznam.cz) |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #16 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2011-11-13 14:56:56 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ff-utils Short Description: Utilities to test force feedback of input device Owners: rebus Branches: rawhide F16 F15 InitialCC:
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=556128
--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-13 15:20:38 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Removed rawhide, ==devel.
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=556128
--- Comment #18 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2011-11-13 19:28:36 EST --- Pushing to devel, F16, F15. Tested to be working on F16 with : Bus 008 Device 003: ID 046d:c218 Logitech, Inc. Logitech RumblePad 2 USB
FC16 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3511964 FC15 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3511972
(In reply to comment #15)
Just needed this and would like to see it included.
Should be available soon in the updates-testing of F15 and F16 or you can download the package directly from the koji build system. Please can you test ? Best regards Michal Ambroz
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=556128
--- Comment #19 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com 2011-11-14 03:44:29 EST --- Michal, if you put BZ number to Bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc16 then it will move this BZ automatically to ON_QA and when pushed to stable to CLOSED CURRENT RELEASE. If you omit it you have to switch this BZ manually.
Can you please update either the update or switch this BZ manually?
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=556128
Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Michal Ambroz rebus@seznam.cz 2011-11-14 15:22:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #19)
Michal, if you put BZ number to Bodhi: Can you please update either the update or switch this BZ manually?
Sure
Package was tagged for updates-testing, but is still in status pending - I assume that within days it should be available from the repositories.
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=556128
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
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=556128
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-15 09:37:18 EST --- ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15894
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=556128
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-15 09:39:57 EST --- ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15884
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=556128
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-11-24 21:13:44
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-24 21:13:44 EST --- ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
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=556128
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc16 |ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc15
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-16 14:58:46 EST --- ff-utils-2.4.21-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org