https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838608 --- Comment #4 from Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review