https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838608
--- Comment #4 from Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to comment #3)
"FIX? The build process produces a shim.efi.debug file -- is
that supposed
to be in the debuginfo package, or are we expecting that there won't be any
because the binary is not ELF?"
There's no real way to use the debuginfo, since the binary never runs under
the installed system. Using standard debug mechanisms isn't possible.
Fair enough. Is the .debug file useful with any other tools? If so, does it
make sense to try to get it into the debuginfo subpackage? If not,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo notes a way to disable
generation of a debuginfo subpackage. Doing so and noting why it's done could
be useful for people who wonder about this in the future.
"CHECK: The stated license (MIT) is acceptable, though linking
with (a
partial bundled) OpenSSL libcrypto and with libgnuefi at the same time could
be problematic."
gnuefi has been relicensed to BSD and I've uploaded an updated version to
rawhide.
OK.
"FIX? The notes in COPYRIGHT appear to match BSD (2 clause
variant) as
listed at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD more
closely than
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT, though both are
free licenses."
Changed to BSD.
OK.
"FIX? Does this need to be "ExclusiveArch: i686 x86_64
ia64" or similar, as
gnu-efi, which is one of this package's build requirements, is?"
Made ExclusiveArch: x86_64 (it doesn't support other relocation formats)
OK.
"FIX: Are the -mno-red-zone flag and static linking the main
reasons for
bundling OpenSSL's libcrypto here? Can comments be added to the .spec file
so that the rationale is known?"
Yes. I've added some comments.
Thanks!
"FIX: The package includes /boot/efi/EFI/redhat/shim.efi; the
gnu-efi
package provides /boot/efi/EFI/redhat, but this package doesn't require
gnu-efi. Please add a "Requires: gnu-efi" to ensure that the directory is
owned while the package is installed."
Done.
OK.
"FIX: Please specify the desired permissions when calling
'install' during
the %install phase."
Done, although install defaults to 0755 in the absence of anything else.
New SRPM and spec uploaded to
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/shim/
OK.
(In reply to comment #2)
rpmlint is finding the following errors:
Checking: shim-0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
shim-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
shim-0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
shim.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader,
boot-loader, boatload
shim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader,
boot-loader, boatload
shim-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
shim.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader,
boot-loader, boatload
shim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot
loader, boot-loader, boatload
shim.x86_64: E: no-binary
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
Whether it's spelled "bootloader" or "boot loader" seems to be up
for debate
(rpmlint wants the latter, but the former _does_ show up in my
/usr/share/dict/words), so my personal inclination is to give these a pass.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.