[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Bug 904843 depends on bug 924442, which changed state. Bug 924442 Summary: please patch spec file to enable newer versions of acpixtract to be made available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924442 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Bug 904843 depends on bug 924442, which changed state. Bug 924442 Summary: please patch spec file to enable newer versions of acpixtract to be made available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924442 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Bug 904843 depends on bug 924442, which changed state. Bug 924442 Summary: please patch spec file to enable newer versions of acpixtract to be made available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924442 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Al Stone a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #49 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Updated package files (new upstream): Spec URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130823-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji results from same: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5856931 rpmlint results are clean, and licensing has been added to all of the AAPITS files that were previously a problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DZEC19ksNGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #48 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- A little update: the patch I submitted to clarify licensing was not accepted by upstream; they are very reluctant to include a separate file because of their dual licensing (they don't want anyone confused, hence they make it explicit in each source file). However, I was assured that in the next release (due within a week), all of the UNKNOWNs found by licensecheck before should be fixed and have the same header as all of the other source code files. Makefiles and scripts may or may not have them by them; I'm investigating another patch to correct those. So, where does that leave us? Is the review completed and the package acceptable? Or do we need to wait until we get the next version from upstream? Thanks again for all the help! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TeHTuG5FAfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #47 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Updated package files: Spec URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-2.fc19.src.rpm Koji results from same: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5835349 (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #44) I've fixed up all the warnings reported by rpmlint except for the spelling errors. At least, the spelling errors are all it reports to me anymore :). The licensing file I'll touch on below. I've submitted a possible patch to upstream for a LICENSE file clarifying things. We'll see how that goes. (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #45) The source is being licensed under the GPLv2 (and upstream is pretty religious about including the right text in all of the source files). Is it necessary to include a copy of GPLv2? I can, but it seems redundant. Amusingly licensecheck --recursive doesn't properly pick up the GPLv2 license header in any of the source files. So while all appear to be GPLv2 there's some in generate/unix/iasl/obj/ that are GPLv3+ so it's possible that at least some binaries are licensed differently. All of the files in generate/unix/iasl/obj are generated files. The ones noted as GPLv3 are all created during the build by bison. On reading those files, though, there is a special proviso for using them in non-GPLv3 programs that allows them to be treated as GPLv2 source files. The UNKNOWN entries are all part of AAPITS tests provided by upstream; per the ACPICA site (www.acpica.org), the FAQ says they can redistributed under the GPL and they are part of the test suite source code ACPICA (upstream) makes available. I am getting clarification, just to be sure. Worst case, we would have to take the test cases out of the %check portion of the package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix I can't find explicitly where it says we need to include a licence/copying file but in the subpackaging it states the details of it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing Right. I've submitted a patch upstream to clarify; if they accept it, there will be a separate LICENSE file available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y5tyvpyHd2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #42 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc18.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc19.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc20.src.rpm Is there any difference between the 3 src.rpms? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QkGpUaI68oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #43 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #42) Spec URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc18.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc19.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc20.src.rpm Is there any difference between the 3 src.rpms? In fact none of them are there. Going with acpica-tools-20130725-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FENJPHxGUca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #44 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com ---
- rpmlint output
A few things to fix up here. Ignore the spelling-error. The main ones that need
attention are invalid-url, mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs and likely
setup-not-quiet.
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iasl - ails, sail,
isl
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpibin - backspin
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpidump - dumpiness
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpiexec - apiece
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpihelp - perihelia
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpinames -
pinnacles
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpisrc - acropolis
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpixtract -
extraction
acpica-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmtools - pm tools,
pm-tools, tools
acpica-tools.src: W: strange-permission run-misc-tests.sh 0755L
acpica-tools.src:36: W: unversioned-explicit-provides acpixtract
acpica-tools.src:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides acpidump
acpica-tools.src:76: W: setup-not-quiet
acpica-tools.src:103: W: macro-in-comment %{optflags}
acpica-tools.src:103: W: macro-in-comment %{_smp_mflags}
acpica-tools.src:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
44)
acpica-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source1:
https://www.acpica.org/download/acpitests-unix-20130725.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
acpica-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://www.acpica.org/download/acpica-unix2-20130725.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
acpica-tools.spec:36: W: unversioned-explicit-provides acpixtract
acpica-tools.spec:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides acpidump
acpica-tools.spec:76: W: setup-not-quiet
acpica-tools.spec:103: W: macro-in-comment %{optflags}
acpica-tools.spec:103: W: macro-in-comment %{_smp_mflags}
acpica-tools.spec:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 44)
acpica-tools.spec: W: invalid-url Source1:
https://www.acpica.org/download/acpitests-unix-20130725.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
acpica-tools.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://www.acpica.org/download/acpica-unix2-20130725.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 26 warnings.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
- license matches the actual package license
There is no included licence file at all and running a licensecheck -r
acpica-unix2-20130725 produces a bunch of unknown and the following:
generate/unix/iasl/obj/ GPL (v3 or later)
+ latest version packaged
- %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
- upstream sources match sources in the srpm
can't verify, source URL gives 404
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
+ Package should have man files
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TQIBk6t0w7a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #45 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- The source is being licensed under the GPLv2 (and upstream is pretty religious about including the right text in all of the source files). Is it necessary to include a copy of GPLv2? I can, but it seems redundant. Amusingly licensecheck --recursive doesn't properly pick up the GPLv2 license header in any of the source files. So while all appear to be GPLv2 there's some in generate/unix/iasl/obj/ that are GPLv3+ so it's possible that at least some binaries are licensed differently. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix I can't find explicitly where it says we need to include a licence/copying file but in the subpackaging it states the details of it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Jme6cha3sQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #46 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #43) (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #42) Spec URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc18.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc19.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc20.src.rpm Is there any difference between the 3 src.rpms? In fact none of them are there. Going with acpica-tools-20130725-1.fc20.src.rpm Argh. Sorry about that. Faulty SCP on my part. Yes, they are all the same, other than the version number. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=k84HQbP2nHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #41 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- New upstream version; updated package is here: Spec URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc18.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc19.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ahs3.fedorapeople.org/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc20.src.rpm Successful koji scratch build for f18 (primary archs): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5827146 Successful koji scratch build for f19 (primary archs): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5827201 Successful koji scratch build for f20 (primary archs): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5827154 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ve9fmZnsu9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #38 from Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com --- The original patches that provided this support are still carried along for iasl Thanks for confirming, that's enough to avoid regressions! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5Scv5RZe92a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #39 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Successful koji scratch build for f19 on ppc/ppc64: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1265768 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Hwyuahidyra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #40 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Successful koji scratch build for f19 on ARM: http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2023272 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bPChdG8XQQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #37 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- New upstream version; updated package is here: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc18.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130626-1.fc19.src.rpm Successful koji scratch build for f18 (primary archs): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5658489 Successful koji scratch build for f19 (primary archs): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5658465 Other archs still pending. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sY6O4fyBc0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Al Stone a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(a...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #35 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Paolo Bonzini from comment #34) Omitting PPC, SPARC and s390 support for iasl would be a regression. On PPC, SPARC and s390 one can emulate an x86 system using qemu-system-x86. Cross-compiling firmware is supported, and it uses the iasl binary. The iasl package contains the necessary patches for big-endian support (unfortunately not supported upstream). I don't know about the remaining tools; if it is not too hard it would be nice to have them too. So far, I have not so much omitted these architectures as left them to the porters for those architectures. The original patches that provided this support are still carried along for iasl; the spec file will allow the package to be built on these architectures. In theory, all of the other tools should just work (in practice, that has not been tested). I'll make some time to determine if the latest versions still work on these architectures and if not, fix them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tWPcXfW8KJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #36 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Xose Vazquez Perez from comment #33) (In reply to Al Stone from comment #21) (In reply to comment #18) Note: Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will only work if the other package is alternatives-aware, and it appears to contain an older version of the same tools. Coordinate the retirement of the obsoleted packages with the other package maintainers. Obsoleting pmtools would remove the acpidump tool from Fedora; I actually use it, and perhaps others do, too. What I've done is provide a patch to the pmtools package and filed a bug asking for pmtools to use the alternatives mechanism for acpixtract (the only command in common between the two packages); please see BZ#924442 for details. I've also made that a blocker for this bug. pmtools(acpidump and acpixtract) package was abandoned. Former maintainer(Len Brown len.br...@intel.com) says: -Original Message- From: Xose Vazquez Perez [mailto:xose.vazq...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:19 PM To: l...@kernel.org; Brown, Len Subject: pmtools: where ?? hi Len, http://lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php is outdated. And http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/utils/ is empty. where can I download latest pmtools ? Original Message Subject: RE: pmtools: where ?? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:28:39 + From: Brown, Len len.br...@intel.com To: Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com pmtools no longer exists. acpidump is in the linux kernel tree under tools/power/acpi/ acpixract comes along with iasl in the acpica release on acpica.org. cheers, -Len End acpidump.* : http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/ power/acpi/ Note, too, that ACPICA now provides their own version of acpidump, and as of the 20130626-1 I will add it to the acpica-tools package as an alternative to the one from pmtools; it was added just after 20130517 was first packaged. I'll add a pointer to the 20130626-1 packages as soon as I have them done. NB: lesswatts.org where the original pmtools source lived no longer exists. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BksCwcqp1qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@redhat.com, ||pbonz...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(a...@redhat.com) --- Comment #34 from Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com --- Omitting PPC, SPARC and s390 support for iasl would be a regression. On PPC, SPARC and s390 one can emulate an x86 system using qemu-system-x86. Cross-compiling firmware is supported, and it uses the iasl binary. The iasl package contains the necessary patches for big-endian support (unfortunately not supported upstream). I don't know about the remaining tools; if it is not too hard it would be nice to have them too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DiGESTw99Ma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- Comment #33 from Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Al Stone from comment #21) (In reply to comment #18) Note: Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will only work if the other package is alternatives-aware, and it appears to contain an older version of the same tools. Coordinate the retirement of the obsoleted packages with the other package maintainers. Obsoleting pmtools would remove the acpidump tool from Fedora; I actually use it, and perhaps others do, too. What I've done is provide a patch to the pmtools package and filed a bug asking for pmtools to use the alternatives mechanism for acpixtract (the only command in common between the two packages); please see BZ#924442 for details. I've also made that a blocker for this bug. pmtools(acpidump and acpixtract) package was abandoned. Former maintainer(Len Brown len.br...@intel.com) says: -Original Message- From: Xose Vazquez Perez [mailto:xose.vazq...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:19 PM To: l...@kernel.org; Brown, Len Subject: pmtools: where ?? hi Len, http://lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php is outdated. And http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/utils/ is empty. where can I download latest pmtools ? Original Message Subject: RE: pmtools: where ?? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:28:39 + From: Brown, Len len.br...@intel.com To: Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com pmtools no longer exists. acpidump is in the linux kernel tree under tools/power/acpi/ acpixract comes along with iasl in the acpica release on acpica.org. cheers, -Len End acpidump.* : http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/power/acpi/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gVVL7tTdzga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #32 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Many thanks, Peter. Let me know if you find anything and I'll jump on it ASAP. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ECWw1Bbl78a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #29 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Please don't set the fedora-review? flag for your own package. This has to be set by a reviewer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=F8bUyd8JnLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #30 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #29) Please don't set the fedora-review? flag for your own package. This has to be set by a reviewer. Ah, my apologies. Thank you for removing it; I had inadvertently done so. Any idea when someone might pick this up so that I can get it into Fedora? I have now received sponsorship as a packager, it has been in the queue for four months and had extensive review, and builds for both f18 and f19. Not sure what's left to do, at this point, other than just wait -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qbtTR8ZDlMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pbrobin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #31 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- I'll take it and try and get it done this week -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uVji5TMhmja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #28 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- New upstream version; updated package is here: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130517-1.fc18.src.rpm Successful koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5436035 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zYIe4ljUT5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #27 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Successful f19 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5262099 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UAGtUA63qpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #26 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Re comment #25 on Exclude/Exclusive Arch: the package definitely works on x86* platforms and on ARM; the others are secondaries and will likely need help from the maintainers there should they want this package at all. Hence, I'm leaving out any exclusions. A new upstream version became available. Successful koji scratch build may be found here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5256169 Updated versions can also be found here: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130328-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QrmWmSuCjHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Al Stone a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Gio847mWjha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #25 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com ---
Further investigation on my part has me convinced that ExcludeArch is still
the proper way to go. Neither PPC, Sparc or s390 (of any flavor) provide
or support ACPI in any meaningful way. It's just simply not the way these
systems work on boot. Therefore, providing support for them in this package
is essentially meaningless; you wouldn't be able to use any of the results
produced.
The following is probably the best way to handle it because if you do
ExcludeArch it won't take into account other bringups (Tile/MIPS/jcm) that
people way wish to do in the future.
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gj8GI5km7ua=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #24 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- I'll sponsor Al so removing blocker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HNeCGKBk8la=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Al Stone a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||924442 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=P76xtkGmfta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #21 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Non-sponsor review:
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Note: Package comments explain why optimizations are disabled,
but the other compiler option flags should be honoured
(via %{optflags}) such as -g
Use of %{optflags} now incorporated. It appears to have no affect on the test
results and upstream does not appear to be as adamant as they used to be about
not using -O with this latest version.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Removed.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
Removed. No sense in carrying around something not needed.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
Note: should be automatically produced if -g option is used
during make
Is this applicable? -debuginfo packages are automatically
produced, but this package contains no libraries that would
need header files and the like.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
Note: ExcludeArch should not be included (these tools can
be used to cross-prepare ACPI tables even on systems that
cannot use them)
Removed. PPC and s390 do not build from source; as secondary architectures,
this is not critical, but I would like to resolve it soon.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will
only work if the other package is alternatives-aware, and it appears
to contain an older version of the same tools. Coordinate the
retirement of the obsoleted packages with the other package
maintainers.
Obsoleting pmtools would remove the acpidump tool from Fedora; I actually
use it, and perhaps others do, too. What I've done is provide a patch to
the pmtools package and filed a bug asking for pmtools to use the alternatives
mechanism for acpixtract (the only command in common between the two packages);
please see BZ#924442 for details. I've also made that a blocker for this bug.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
See note above.
See note above :).
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
See note on pmtools conflict above.
See note above :).
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations.
Note: %_sourcedir is used. Use %{SOURCE1} to refer to the Source1
file instead.
Fixed.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
See notes on optflags above.
With use of %optflags, this should now be corrected.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #22 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Updated versions now available. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130214-2.fc18.src.rpm Thanks again for all the help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jNhpqugiKBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #23 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Successful koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5155146 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ozbdL8AUzua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #20 from Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info --- [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package Note: should be automatically produced if -g option is used during make Could you elaborate? Perhaps you refer to the -debuginfo package? Yes, I meant -debuginfo ... reading too fast :-( Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will only work if the other package is alternatives-aware Since the plan was to add alternatives to pmtools, a ticket could be opened for that, blocking this review. But pmtools isn't really an alternative -- it's just an old version of the same code (also from Intel). The page at the URL from the pmtools package (http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php) says The latest ACPICA package, including iASL compiler is here: http://www.acpica.org/downloads/;, which is where this package comes from. The lesswatts initiative dates back to ~2008 and hasn't seen a lot of love since (the site shows 2.6.26 (July 2008) as the last kernel in the graphs). (Come to think of it, I have a flourescent-green lesswatts.org shirt from OLS 2008...) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=is6JfJIcOKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
the other compiler option flags should be honoured
(via %{optflags}) such as -g
Agreed. I had asked about filtering out -O2, since not all of %optflags
is about optimizing. Some help with locating bugs.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
Note: should be automatically produced if -g option is used
during make
Could you elaborate? Perhaps you refer to the -debuginfo package?
ExcludeArch should not be included ...
Either that or (as linked before) there must be tickets that
explain why ExcludeArch is used:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support
Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will
only work if the other package is alternatives-aware
Since the plan was to add alternatives to pmtools, a ticket could be
opened for that, blocking this review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hcw6nwh37Ja=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ch...@tylers.info |nob...@fedoraproject.org
Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #18 from Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info ---
Non-sponsor review:
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Note: Package comments explain why optimizations are disabled,
but the other compiler option flags should be honoured
(via %{optflags}) such as -g
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
Note: should be automatically produced if -g option is used
during make
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
Note: ExcludeArch should not be included (these tools can
be used to cross-prepare ACPI tables even on systems that
cannot use them)
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will
only work if the other package is alternatives-aware, and it appears
to contain an older version of the same tools. Coordinate the
retirement of the obsoleted packages with the other package
maintainers.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
See note above.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
See note on pmtools conflict above.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations.
Note: %_sourcedir is used. Use %{SOURCE1} to refer to the Source1
file instead.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
See notes on optflags above.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ch...@tylers.info Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ch...@tylers.info Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xxut4S4p0pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #17 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Upstream has now provided a newer version. Packages have been rebuilt and are ready to push into SCM most any time. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130214-1.fc18.src.rpm Koji builds: -- x86/x86_64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5028666 -- ARM: http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1449293 You may retrieve the packages from a yum repository, if you wish; use the following config: [experimental] name=experimental baseurl=http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/ahs3/experimental/fedora-18/x86_64/ http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/ahs3/experimental/fedora-18/noarch/ http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/ahs3/experimental/fedora-18/SRPMS/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 Do I have approval to go to the next step in getting this package into Fedora? Thanks for the time and effort. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sF0QDWKGusa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Oh, discussing Debian packaging practices is beyond the scope of a Fedora
package review request. ;)
I would also favour more relaxed Fedora packaging guidelines in a few areas,
but with more freedom comes more responsibility, and simply adhering to package
versioning guidelines makes it easier to avoid common pitfalls (such as
violated dist-upgrade paths, desire to downgrade something, Epoch madness) and
reinventing the wheel.
[...]
Version: 5.0
You may consider the ACPI specification version relevant, but it is not being
used for the versioning scheme of the acpica-unix archive. Where's the benefit?
acixf.h
#define ACPI_CA_VERSION 0x20130117
changes.txt
17 January 2013. Summary of changes for version 20130117:
https://www.acpica.org/downloads/linux.php
The current release of ACPICA is version 20130117.
The tarball: acpica-unix-20130117.tar.gz
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=acpica
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/acpica-unix/+bug/1060791
The Obsoletes/Provides pair now would be self-obsoleting
Provides: iasl = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: iasl 20120913-7
and would advertise a changed versioning scheme for iasl, too.
Release: 20130117.1%{?dist}
So, I see you've returned to the official tarball release.
You invent your own versioning scheme, with the real upstream version being
part of the Release tag.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
It's also not as flexible as you might think. Imagine the need to release an
update for an older dist. For ordinary package changes, you could only bump the
Release tag at the very right side,
Release: 20130117.1%{?dist}
-
Release: 20130117.1%{?dist}.1
or else a package for Fedora 17 could become newer than a package for Fedora
18.
That's described here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches
Even more so, if you ever wanted to use a new snapshot for an older dist only.
With the date value at the most-significant position of the Release tag, you
could not increase it without doing that also for all newer dists.
rpmdev-bumpspec would need to be patched/enhanced, too, to understand this
versioning scheme. For mass-rebuilds of Fedora packages, it would apply only
the minor release bump to this package. Not pretty.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XjemNYtbnva=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #15 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Oh, discussing Debian packaging practices is beyond the scope of a Fedora
package review request. ;)
Agreed :-).
[...]
Version: 5.0
You may consider the ACPI specification version relevant, but it is not
being used for the versioning scheme of the acpica-unix archive. Where's the
benefit?
My thinking was it would aid the user. However, given that the ACPI
spec has never been in the versioning _before_, I can concede on that
point. It doesn't really add that much.
acixf.h
#define ACPI_CA_VERSION 0x20130117
changes.txt
17 January 2013. Summary of changes for version 20130117:
https://www.acpica.org/downloads/linux.php
The current release of ACPICA is version 20130117.
The tarball: acpica-unix-20130117.tar.gz
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=acpica
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/acpica-unix/+bug/1060791
Hrm. Fair enough. It would make it more difficult to find things
across distros; I had not considered that part of it.
The Obsoletes/Provides pair now would be self-obsoleting
Provides: iasl = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: iasl 20120913-7
and would advertise a changed versioning scheme for iasl, too.
Release: 20130117.1%{?dist}
So, I see you've returned to the official tarball release.
Yup. Examining the changes in git vs the official tarball in more detail,
they were not sufficient to justify going to a snapshot type of package.
They were useful patches, but nice to have not essential to working
properly. The benefit was far outweighed by the effort for the snapshot
scheme.
You invent your own versioning scheme, with the real upstream version being
part of the Release tag.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
[...]
Yes, I did, with the thought that it might be more useful (I seek to
continuously improve things whenever I can...). In this case, though, the
counter-arguments so far have had more weight -- and more practicality that
I had not seen before. I've learned a great deal :).
So let's just use the original straightforward scheme. I can work with
that. That would be:
Version: 20130117
Release: 1%{?dist}
which should handle the Obsoletes/Provides, as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=to2f8F38qna=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #16 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Updated versions now available. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130117-5.fc18.src.rpm Thanks again for all the help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u61RE6HEsKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #12 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
On f18, if I do yum list iasl, I get 20100528-6.
Could you please explain the too low part?
Sure. You somehow miss the %{?dist} macro at the end of the Release tag. The
value the macro expands to is not ignored during RPM version comparison:
# rpm --eval %dist
.fc19
# yum list iasl|grep ^iasl
iasl.x86_64 20120913-6.fc19
rawhide
# rpmdev-vercmp 20120913-6.fc19 20120913-6
20120913-6.fc19 20120913-6
Whups. Thanks. I was missing the obvious part (the use of %dist).
what should the version be?
Either = the latest EVR from Rawhide or the next higher Release
value, i.e. either
Obsoletes: iasl = 20120913-6.fc19
or
Obsoletes: iasl 20120913-7
[...]
Provides: iasl 20120913-6
Very unusual. Rather:
Provides: iasl = %{version}-%{release}
Aha. Right. I didn't think that through properly. Many thanks for the
explanation.
[...]
I will need to do is provide a patch to the pmtools
package so that they also use alternatives
Ah, that makes sense, of course.
Cool. Thanks.
This is indeed a snapshot, so the version is now 20130123git,
For a snapshot, you would need to adhere to the following guideline
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
| There are several cases where upstream is not providing the source
| to you in an upstream tarball. In these cases you must document how
| to generate the tarball used in the rpm either through a spec file
| comment or a script included as a separate SourceX:.
because the URL you've constructed results in 404 not found, as well as
the Packaging Naming Guidelines for snapshot packages (which Antonio has
pointed at):
Version: 20130117
Aha. I'm used to Debian packaging which is a little more
relaxed in this regard.
Which is the last official release of the source tarball, because typically
one doesn't make up own Version numbers, even if it may be possible to
predict the next version. And
Release: 1.20130123git%{?dist}
to apply Fedora's naming guidelines for post-release snapshot packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-
Release_packages
Alternatively, if you would insist on predicting the next officially
released version, you could apply the pre-release snapshot naming guidelines
(which isn't prettier however because for newer snapshots you would change
also the Version tag, not just the Release):
Version: 20130123
Release: 0.1.20130123git%{?dist}
There, for updates of the package, you would bump the 0. and/or the
snapshot date. For a future officially released tarball, you would update
Version and reset Release back to 1%{?dist}.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
|
| If the snapshot package is considered a pre-release package,
| you should follow the guidelines listed in Pre-Release Packages
| for snapshot packages,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-
Release_packages
Hrm. Stepping back a second and rethinking the versioning, it is not
critical to have the latest version from git (nice, but not critical).
I think it would better to drop this and go to something that might
convey more useful info to the user; the upstream git doesn't really
change all that often, either (usually just at release time anyway).
What upstream does is release a version supporting a specific release of
the ACPI specification (5.0, in this case). Then, they periodically
update the implementation (changing the date in the tarball name). So,
my first thought was to do something like this:
Version: 5.0
Release: 1.20130117%{?dist}
and increment the 1. at the beginning of Release for each packaging change
and/or bug fix required, similar to what was suggested above. If I need to
pull something from git, do it as a patch and carry the patch until the next
official release tarball. At the next tarball, reset the release back to
1.date.
Unfortunately...
$ rpmdev-vercmp 5.0-7.20130117.fc18 5.0-1.20130217.fc18
5.0-7.20130117.fc18 5.0-1.20130217.fc18
However, this approach compares properly:
Version: 5.0
Release: 20130117.1%{?dist}
$ rpmdev-vercmp 5.0-20130117.7.fc18 5.0-20130217.1.fc18
5.0-20130117.7.fc18 5.0-20130217.1.fc18
When the ACPI 6.0 specification comes out, 5.0 - 6.0. When a new official
tarball comes out, 20130117 - the new date. If a packaging fix or a new
patch is needed, .1 - .2, and so on.
I'll prepare rpm's with this scheme and post them. Let me know what you think.
My sense is that this approach is just a lot more straightforward and I was
making things more complicated than need be without gaining anything by it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #13 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Updated versions now available. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-5.0-20130117.1.fc18.src.rpm Thanks again for all the suggestions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7pA9SF8Ji1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
On f18, if I do yum list iasl, I get 20100528-6.
Could you please explain the too low part?
Sure. You somehow miss the %{?dist} macro at the end of the Release tag. The
value the macro expands to is not ignored during RPM version comparison:
# rpm --eval %dist
.fc19
# yum list iasl|grep ^iasl
iasl.x86_64 20120913-6.fc19
rawhide
# rpmdev-vercmp 20120913-6.fc19 20120913-6
20120913-6.fc19 20120913-6
what should the version be?
Either = the latest EVR from Rawhide or the next higher Release value,
i.e. either
Obsoletes: iasl = 20120913-6.fc19
or
Obsoletes: iasl 20120913-7
[...]
Provides: iasl 20120913-6
Very unusual. Rather:
Provides: iasl = %{version}-%{release}
[...]
I will need to do is provide a patch to the pmtools
package so that they also use alternatives
Ah, that makes sense, of course.
This is indeed a snapshot, so the version is now 20130123git,
For a snapshot, you would need to adhere to the following guideline
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
| There are several cases where upstream is not providing the source
| to you in an upstream tarball. In these cases you must document how
| to generate the tarball used in the rpm either through a spec file
| comment or a script included as a separate SourceX:.
because the URL you've constructed results in 404 not found, as well as the
Packaging Naming Guidelines for snapshot packages (which Antonio has pointed
at):
Version: 20130117
Which is the last official release of the source tarball, because typically one
doesn't make up own Version numbers, even if it may be possible to predict
the next version. And
Release: 1.20130123git%{?dist}
to apply Fedora's naming guidelines for post-release snapshot packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
Alternatively, if you would insist on predicting the next officially released
version, you could apply the pre-release snapshot naming guidelines (which
isn't prettier however because for newer snapshots you would change also the
Version tag, not just the Release):
Version: 20130123
Release: 0.1.20130123git%{?dist}
There, for updates of the package, you would bump the 0. and/or the snapshot
date. For a future officially released tarball, you would update Version and
reset Release back to 1%{?dist}.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
|
| If the snapshot package is considered a pre-release package,
| you should follow the guidelines listed in Pre-Release Packages
| for snapshot packages,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BXRnX5AmAKa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Cut'n'paste error in my previous comment: There, for updates of the package, you would bump the 0. and/or ... ... bump the value at the right of 0. and/or ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e7iA1Z0N31a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130123-1.f18.src.rpm
404 not found. f18 = fc18! ;)
obsolete tag is needed
It's there (below the BuildRequires in the spec file), but it's too low for the
latest Fedora package:
Obsoletes: iasl = 20120913-6
Compare with: yum list iasl
Also, since it includes %{_bindir}/iasl and shall replace package iasl, a
versioned Provides for iasl ought to be added.
further, the pmtools package -- which provides acpidump -- also provides
a /usr/sbin/acpixtract that we don't really want to collide with
You do collide currently, however, because both builds of acpixtract are in
$PATH. For normal users:
$ rpm -qf $(which acpixtract)
file /usr/bin/acpixtract is not owned by any package
$ file $(which acpixtract)
/usr/bin/acpixtract: symbolic link to `/etc/alternatives/acpixtract'
For root:
# rpm -qf $(which acpixtract)
pmtools-20100513-3.fc18.x86_64
/sbin is before /usr/bin in $PATH for root, and vice versa for ordinary users.
NB: this package does not use the %{optflags} macro
Rationale: upstream claims that using -O will lead to miscompilation
and the resulting tools will be incorrect. Since ACPI is
a reasonably critical part of the environment, we are erring
on the side of caution. Furthermore, it is not important that
these tools operate more quickly than they do. Their present
performance level is sufficient.
A few thoughts here:
1) Since I haven't checked whether the source code uses plain C only or also
machine/assembler language, does the claim of miscompilation refer to the C
source files? Does the test-suite discover the miscompilation?
Given the fact that many thousands of packages are built with Fedora's
optflags, miscompilation for this particular software could be due to a
questionable programming style (such as dubious/unsafe assumptions about memory
layout and e.g. casts). It could be enlightening to track down where it breaks,
especially if this code is supposed to be a reference implementation.
2) Has this ever been reported to the GNU compiler developers? Or even Red
Hat's compiler maintainers?
3) %optflags are not just for performance. It's also security related and helps
locating bugs, too:
$ rpm --eval %optflags
-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
Could they be used with -O2 filtered out?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
%{_mandir}/man1/iasl.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/iasl.1* is the more flexible wildcard for including manual
pages, as it allows for the compression method to be disabled/reconfigured.
- NB: ACPICA documentation is not clearly redistributable so not included
Apparently, this %changelog comment doesn't refer to files included within the
src.rpm, does it? I find the comment confusing and ask about it, because if the
src.rpm included the docs, they would need to be deleted from it, too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JTRy1wnbV9a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- obsolete tag is needed It's there (below the BuildRequires in the spec file), but it's too low for the latest Fedora package: Ops ! I'm sorry, guys. I had not see it. :( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PaPnUqO5JNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #5 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #1) Hi Al. NB: this package does work on x86_64; it may or may not work properly on i386 or ARM. Part of getting this package into Fedora is to provide for such additional testing and/or porting as needed. About this, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support I misspoke :(. And I had a silly bug in the testing script that I had not seen. x86 and x86_64 work: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4906710 ARM works: https://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1401630 PPC, sparc and s390 should also build properly (I am currently correcting the build errors). At the same time, I had read that part of the guidelines, but it was unclear to me how that applied to brand new packages. It seemed sort of odd to file bugs for something that does not build when the package wasn't in the archive yet. I'll post a -2 version once I verify the PPC, sparc and s390 fixes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2Td3mVu4Q6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #6 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #1) Hi Al. NB: this package does work on x86_64; it may or may not work properly on i386 or ARM. Part of getting this package into Fedora is to provide for such additional testing and/or porting as needed. About this, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support I misspoke :(. And I had a silly bug in the testing script that I had not seen. x86 and x86_64 work: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4906710 ARM works: https://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1401630 PPC, sparc and s390 should also build properly (I am currently correcting the build errors). At the same time, I had read that part of the guidelines, but it was unclear to me how that applied to brand new packages. It seemed sort of odd to file bugs for something that does not build when the package wasn't in the archive yet. I'll post a -2 version once I verify the PPC, sparc and s390 fixes. Further investigation on my part has me convinced that ExcludeArch is still the proper way to go. Neither PPC, Sparc or s390 (of any flavor) provide or support ACPI in any meaningful way. It's just simply not the way these systems work on boot. Therefore, providing support for them in this package is essentially meaningless; you wouldn't be able to use any of the results produced. The package has been modified accordingly (with an explanation added) and will be in the -2 version to be posted later today. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MuxrZvDYIma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #7 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #2) Just few other comments. NB: the intent would be for this package to supercede the iasl package which (a) only ships the iasl tool mentioned above from the same upstream source, and (b) is a little bit dated. This would be the more complete version of the ACPICA tools. - obsolete tag is needed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming. 2FReplacing_Existing_Packages As noted elsewhere, there is an Obsoletes tag. Added a Provides tag to help clarify, too. - I don't see any License file in the source archive. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Added. Thanks for catching that! - Where does tar.gz source come from ? Because in https://www.acpica.org/downloads/ I see the 20130117 whereas the 20130123 seems available in https://github.com/otcshare/acpica/. In this last case, you should look around https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages This is indeed a snapshot, so the version is now 20130123git, as I believe the policy is indicating it should be. Note that this is the only versioning that upstream uses on the code, unfortunately, so a version such as 1.0.20130123git would not make a great deal of sense :(. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=muYQ3kCtwQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843
--- Comment #8 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #3)
http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130123-1.f18.src.rpm
404 not found. f18 = fc18! ;)
D'oh. Sorry about that. I type fast enough I sometimes forget that a
quick cut'n'paste might be more accurate :).
obsolete tag is needed
It's there (below the BuildRequires in the spec file), but it's too low for
the latest Fedora package:
Obsoletes: iasl = 20120913-6
Compare with: yum list iasl
Also, since it includes %{_bindir}/iasl and shall replace package iasl, a
versioned Provides for iasl ought to be added.
I've put in a versioned provide for iasl now.
Could you please explain the too low part? I'm puzzled (as usual :).
On f18, if I do yum list iasl, I get 20100528-6. If I look at the
latest rawhide source, the spec file indicates 20120913-6. If the idea
is to replace everything rawhide and earlier, what should the version be?
further, the pmtools package -- which provides acpidump -- also provides
a /usr/sbin/acpixtract that we don't really want to collide with
You do collide currently, however, because both builds of acpixtract are in
$PATH. For normal users:
$ rpm -qf $(which acpixtract)
file /usr/bin/acpixtract is not owned by any package
$ file $(which acpixtract)
/usr/bin/acpixtract: symbolic link to `/etc/alternatives/acpixtract'
For root:
# rpm -qf $(which acpixtract)
pmtools-20100513-3.fc18.x86_64
/sbin is before /usr/bin in $PATH for root, and vice versa for ordinary
users.
Right. This is why I've added the use of alternatives to the package.
At the same time, what I will need to do is provide a patch to the pmtools
package so that they also use alternatives (and I would recommend moving
the binaries to /usr/bin -- I don't think /usr/sbin is really necessary
for acpixtract, at least). My intent was to provide that patch after this
package had passed review but before it got checked into git.
NB: this package does not use the %{optflags} macro
Rationale: upstream claims that using -O will lead to miscompilation
and the resulting tools will be incorrect. Since ACPI is
a reasonably critical part of the environment, we are erring
on the side of caution. Furthermore, it is not important that
these tools operate more quickly than they do. Their present
performance level is sufficient.
A few thoughts here:
1) Since I haven't checked whether the source code uses plain C only or also
machine/assembler language, does the claim of miscompilation refer to the C
source files? Does the test-suite discover the miscompilation?
There is only C source involved here. I do not know if the test suite
will discover the miscompilation; I'll have to have further discussion
with upstream to determine that.
Given the fact that many thousands of packages are built with Fedora's
optflags, miscompilation for this particular software could be due to a
questionable programming style (such as dubious/unsafe assumptions about
memory layout and e.g. casts). It could be enlightening to track down where
it breaks, especially if this code is supposed to be a reference
implementation.
Agreed. I think what I would like to do is file a bug against this package
eventually and hunt this down. My own suspicion is that the issue is more
likely due to the source having to support MSVC and GCC (plus a few others)
that may cause the underlying problem.
2) Has this ever been reported to the GNU compiler developers? Or even Red
Hat's compiler maintainers?
Not that I know of; it's a long-standing claim that pre-dates my use of
or involvement in ACPI, I'm afraid. I will try to determine if it has,
however, and report on the specific problem once I uncover it.
3) %optflags are not just for performance. It's also security related and
helps locating bugs, too:
$ rpm --eval %optflags
-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
Could they be used with -O2 filtered out?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
Understood. I would prefer to use %{optflags}. There is a patch
called acpica-tools-config.patch that sets the values that these tools
will tolerate with GCC; unfortunately, this even includes turning off
FORTIFY_SOURCE. All I can offer at this point is to work with upstream
over time to correct this. I don't really know if they have been slow
to change, or previous users of this source package have not pushed the
issue with them.
%{_mandir}/man1/iasl.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/iasl.1* is the more flexible wildcard for including manual
pages, as it allows for the compression method to be disabled/reconfigured.
Good to know. Thanks. Fixed in the updated spec file.
- NB: ACPICA documentation is not
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #9 from Al Stone a...@redhat.com --- Updated versions now available. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~ahs3/acpica-tools-20130123git-2.fc18.src.rpm Thanks for everyone's help so far! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=praFNcfGuJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Al Stone a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cOiIAgFlWea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trp...@katamail.com --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- Hi Al. NB: this package does work on x86_64; it may or may not work properly on i386 or ARM. Part of getting this package into Fedora is to provide for such additional testing and/or porting as needed. About this, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8rysL3XeuKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- Just few other comments. NB: the intent would be for this package to supercede the iasl package which (a) only ships the iasl tool mentioned above from the same upstream source, and (b) is a little bit dated. This would be the more complete version of the ACPICA tools. - obsolete tag is needed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages - I don't see any License file in the source archive. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Where does tar.gz source come from ? Because in https://www.acpica.org/downloads/ I see the 20130117 whereas the 20130123 seems available in https://github.com/otcshare/acpica/. In this last case, you should look around https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XpTvYC6AB5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
