https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Bug ID: 871511 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: heimdall - Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall.spec SRPM URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall-1.3.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Heimdall is a cross-platform open-source utility to flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices Fedora Account System Username: jorti
rpmlint output: SPECS/heimdall.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: heimdall-1.3.2.tar.xz heimdall.src: W: invalid-url Source0: heimdall-1.3.2.tar.xz heimdall.src: W: invalid-url Source0: heimdall-1.3.2.tar.xz heimdall.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall heimdall-frontend.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall-frontend 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #1 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall.spec SRPM URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall-1.3.2-2.fc17.src.rpm
Updated Spec to remove unnecessary dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- This package has quite some amount of issues:
1. If at all (running autogen.sh while building is a bad idea), then autogen.sh should be run in "%prep" (and not in %build)
2. The tarball contains */autom4te.cache, which are not supposed to be shipped as part of a tarball. Either fix your tarball creation script or remove them in %prep.
3. Running autogen.sh in libpit raises this error: ... + ./autogen.sh ... /usr/share/automake-1.12/am/library.am: archiver requires 'AM_PROG_AR' in 'configure.ac'
Please fix it.
4. I am observing many "non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour" warnings. These should be considered serious.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #3 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #2)
- If at all (running autogen.sh while building is a bad idea), then
autogen.sh should be run in "%prep" (and not in %build)
I have dropped the use of autogen.sh, now I use the provided configure scripts
- The tarball contains */autom4te.cache, which are not supposed to be
shipped as part of a tarball. Either fix your tarball creation script or remove them in %prep.
Removed
- Running autogen.sh in libpit raises this error:
...
No more autogen
- I am observing many "non-virtual destructor might cause undefined
behaviour" warnings. These should be considered serious.
I cannot do very much here, upstream is making big changes for the next release, I'll test some development builds to see if this problem persists and make some bug report.
The updated files are here: Spec URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall.spec SRPM URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall-1.3.2-3.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Juan No needed the macro %{?_isa} in subpackage frontend. I suggest contacting with the upstream to report the bug or once approved the package, build and test in devel branch for a time Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #5 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #4)
No needed the macro %{?_isa} in subpackage frontend.
I think it's better to fully specify the required version, as stated in the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
I suggest contacting with the upstream to report the bug or once approved the package, build and test in devel branch for a time
I'm testing 1.4rc1 and it has the same warnings, I'm going to open a bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #6 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- For now, I'll do an informal review, and I repeat, if you want build in the devel branch, I'll take the review
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package frontend [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/heimdall30102012/871511-heimdall/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: heimdall-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm heimdall-frontend-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm heimdall-debuginfo-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm heimdall-1.3.2-3.fc17.src.rpm heimdall.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall heimdall-frontend.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall-frontend heimdall.src: W: invalid-url Source0: heimdall-1.3.2.tar.xz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint heimdall heimdall-frontend heimdall-debuginfo heimdall.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall heimdall-frontend.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall-frontend 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- heimdall-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
heimdall-frontend-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
heimdall(x86-64) = 1.3.2-3.fc17 libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
heimdall-debuginfo-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- heimdall-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
heimdall = 1.3.2-3.fc17 heimdall(x86-64) = 1.3.2-3.fc17
heimdall-frontend-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
heimdall-frontend = 1.3.2-3.fc17 heimdall-frontend(x86-64) = 1.3.2-3.fc17
heimdall-debuginfo-1.3.2-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
heimdall-debuginfo = 1.3.2-3.fc17 heimdall-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.3.2-3.fc17
makerpm@echevemaster srpm-unpacked$ sha256sum heimdall-1.3.2.tar.xz* 8f8af9e92b234191001d0b4f6789b3b2a596bab289a67ef5f8b9f241249846b1 heimdall-1.3.2.tar.xz 8f8af9e92b234191001d0b4f6789b3b2a596bab289a67ef5f8b9f241249846b1 heimdall-1.3.2.tar.xz1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #7 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #6)
For now, I'll do an informal review, and I repeat, if you want build in the devel branch, I'll take the review
Thank you. I've reported the warnings: https://github.com/Benjamin-Dobell/Heimdall/issues/69
You mean to update to 1.4rc1 in rawhide, right? Yes, when this will be pushed to stable, I'll update rawhide to the latest version.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #8 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- This is the answer of the author about the compile warnings: https://github.com/Benjamin-Dobell/Heimdall/issues/69
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Then you have to remove the warnings,
Use: CFLAGS="%{optflags} -Wno-delete-non-virtual-dtor -Wno-unused-variable -Wno-unused-result -Wno-sign-compare" CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -Wno-delete-non-virtual-dtor -Wno-unused-variable -Wno-unused-result -Wno-sign-compare"
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |valent.turkovic@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com --- I tried compiling your src.rpm file but I get this error:
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link g++ -O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686 -O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686 -o heimdall source/BridgeManager.o source/Interface.o source/main.o -L/lib -lusb-1.0 ../libpit/libpit-1.3.a libtool: link: g++ -O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686 -O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686 -o heimdall source/BridgeManager.o source/Interface.o source/main.o -L/lib -lusb-1.0 ../libpit/libpit-1.3.a source/Interface.o: In function `__exchange_and_add': /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/ext/atomicity.h:48: undefined reference to `__atomic_fetch_add_4' source/main.o: In function `__exchange_and_add': /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/ext/atomicity.h:48: undefined reference to `__atomic_fetch_add_4' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [heimdall] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/valent/rpmbuild/BUILD/heimdall-1.3.2/heimdall' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.lPtkAk (%build)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #11 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #10)
I tried compiling your src.rpm file but I get this error:
I get no error compiling it in mock, in i386 or x86_64. Are you trying to compile it for rhel?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #12 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi Juan, please update the package with the latest release that come from the git, RC2 has apparently solved the problems that had previous releases.
Follow the naming conventions that outlined in [1], and the new guidelines that covering how to handle sources from Github in a Fedora Package [2]
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_package... [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |echevemaster@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #13 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- since Juan has talked with me to do it the review, I'll do
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #14 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- I have updated the version to 1.4rc2
Spec: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall.spec SRPM: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/heimdall/heimdall-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc18.src.rpm
Rpmlint output: heimdall.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib heimdall.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall heimdall-frontend.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall-frontend 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #15 from Palle Ravn ravnzon@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #14)
I have updated the version to 1.4rc2
All the warnings about deleting object of polymorphic class type, which has non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour, are back. The flags are stated in comment #9
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #16 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #15)
All the warnings about deleting object of polymorphic class type, which has non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour, are back. The flags are stated in comment #9
I don't think it's necessary to hide those warnings
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
All the warnings about deleting object of polymorphic class type, which has non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour, are back. The flags are stated in comment #9
I don't think it's necessary to hide those warnings
It's a matter of do or not do, first upstream explains this behavior, on the other hand would no hurt anyone hide these errors on build, anyway now for me it is not a blocker.
about rpmlint warning (only-non-binary-in-usr-lib) Due to UsrMove this file should be installed in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d ,therefore it is a bogus rpmlint's warning
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package frontend [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/heimdall- final/871511-heimdall/871511-heimdall/licensecheck.txt MIT OK [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: heimdall-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.src.rpm heimdall-frontend-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm heimdall-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm heimdall-debuginfo-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm heimdall-frontend.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall-frontend heimdall.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib heimdall.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint heimdall-frontend heimdall heimdall-debuginfo heimdall-frontend.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall-frontend heimdall.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib heimdall.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heimdall 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- heimdall-frontend-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
heimdall(x86-64) = 1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19 libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
heimdall-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
heimdall-debuginfo-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- heimdall-frontend-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm:
heimdall-frontend = 1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19 heimdall-frontend(x86-64) = 1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19
heimdall-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm:
heimdall = 1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19 heimdall(x86-64) = 1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19
heimdall-debuginfo-1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19.x86_64.rpm:
heimdall-debuginfo = 1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19 heimdall-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.4-0.1.rc2.fc19
MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/Benjamin-Dobell/Heimdall/archive/8c6b20a487b36a7fa9679d55... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f0ef958eb3125f97395a9351b36b19f39449bc94053ad9fbb99c58eaab582195 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f0ef958eb3125f97395a9351b36b19f39449bc94053ad9fbb99c58eaab582195
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ | Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: heimdall Short Description: Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices Owners: jorti echevemaster Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alcaine@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- heimdall-1.4-0.2.rc2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/heimdall-1.4-0.2.rc2.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- heimdall-1.4-0.3.rc2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/heimdall-1.4-0.3.rc2.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- heimdall-1.4-0.3.rc2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-02-26 21:34:47
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- heimdall-1.4-0.3.rc2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org