Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #1 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi&gt; 2008-09-22 04:36:07 EDT --- Note that there is bug #211761 in review pipeline, but it has different upstream http://dfu-programmer.sourceforge.net/ and looks like they are different beasts. dfu-util is used in openmoko project. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jreznik(a)redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #3 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi&gt; 2008-09-22 09:17:45 EDT --- Btw, this package compiles just okay on x86_64, but is reported *not* to work properly and thus i386 arch binary should be used on x86_64 too as long that is solved. I'm not yet familar how it's done, probably with bodhi. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #5 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi&gt; 2008-09-22 09:25:14 EDT --- Comment #2: # rpm -q --requires dfu-util libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libusb libusb-0.1.so.4 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Yes, it's needed. Is there a problem with it? You mean it would do it with brp-requires automatically? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #7 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi&gt; 2008-09-22 10:31:52 EDT --- http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util-0.1-0.4.20080922svn4662.fc9.s... http://tuju.fi/tmp/fedora/dfu-util/dfu-util.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=836151 rpmlint does not complain anymore. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #9 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi&gt; 2008-09-23 12:34:10 EDT --- okay, at least on 32bit fedora9 it works if: - write kernel - write rootfs - switch off + unplug USB cable - boot booting straight from uboot does not work after rootfs download. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com&gt; 2008-10-04 10:12:16 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: FC-9 / i386 [x] Rpmlint output: clean [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct [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] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2+ [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Sources from SVN, commented properly in SPEC file. Diff againts sources in SRPM and sources download is OK. [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: x86_64, ppc64, sparc64 Why: upstream is broken for 64 bit architectures After approval fill bugs blocking FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: koji dist-fc8 dist-fc9 dist-fc10 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: koji dist-fc8 dist-fc9 dist-fc10 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. APROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #13 from Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; 2008-10-19 08:39:17 EDT --- Juha have you done any other work in fedora (comment on reviews, other submissions, and anything else) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #15 from Juha Tuomala <tuju(a)iki.fi&gt; 2008-11-19 09:12:16 EDT --- Pong. I'm active again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 --- Comment #16 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com&gt; 2008-11-19 09:24:04 EDT --- fedora-cvs ? flag is not enough, you should to follow PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com&gt; 2008-11-22 23:16:11 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2009-03-16 15:36:37 EDT --- dfu-util-0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dfu-util'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2693 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463140 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.1-0.8.20090307svn4917.fc1 | |0 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.