Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Bug ID: 883001 Summary: Review Request: shim-signed - shim bootloader signed by UEFI signing service Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: pjones@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/shim-signed/shim-signed.spec SRPM URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/shim-signed/shim-signed-0.2-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: shim bootloader signed by UEFI signing service Fedora Account System Username: pjones
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@scrye.com
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mjg59@srcf.ucam.org Assignee|kevin@scrye.com |mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.org --- rpmlint output:
shim-signed.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-signed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-signed.src:5: W: macro-in-comment %{version} shim-signed.src:5: W: macro-in-comment %{release} shim-signed.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) shim-signed.spec:5: W: macro-in-comment %{version} shim-signed.spec:5: W: macro-in-comment %{release} shim-signed.spec:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5)
Probably ought to declare %global debug_package %{nil} . Other than that, everything looks good.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #2 from Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com --- Okay, I've made that change. With that in mind:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: shim-signed Short Description: UEFI shim bootloader signed by the UEFI signing service. Owners: pjones Branches: f18 InitialCC: mjg59@fedoraproject.org
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs+
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags| |fedora-cvs?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- I rather think we may need some kind of exception to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built...
here. The binary is included as a source no?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.org --- The binary is built from the source code that's included in the package that this depends on, so I don't think the reasoning applies here.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.org --- The alternative is that we simply classify it as binary firmware - it meets all the listed criteria.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- "mjg59@fedoraproject.org" is not a valid FAS account.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #7 from Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com --- My mistake: should be mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Clarification, use a FAS account, not an email address.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #9 from Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com --- (the fas account is "mjg59")
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Peter Jones pjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- (In reply to comment #5)
The alternative is that we simply classify it as binary firmware - it meets all the listed criteria.
Indeed it seems to. ;) Handy. Sounds reasonable to me...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883001
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-08-14 11:55:38
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org