https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nmavrogi(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |nmavrogi(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #2) There is nothing about Fedora 17 in the spec file. The pcsc-lite version is specified because this package is not compatible with earlier pcsc-lite versions. If you ask why it's there, then it's because (1) I submitted the package review many years ago when Fedora 17 was relevant and because (2) it states what's true. If somebody decides to build the package in different distribution (e.g. EPEL), the he will be warned ahead. I have the hardware. I don't you use on Fedora, but it worked. I checked it now in Fedora 21. It still works. Guidelines recommends to stick to upstream name. Also it's driver for any PCSC service talking IFD interface. Yes. I will. I will update the package, as guidelines changed since the time I submitted this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 --- Comment #5 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #3) I'm not sure about that. From the spec file this is clearly a pcsc-lite addon and the guidelines mention: "If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact." We do the same with 'pcsc-lite-ccid', even though ccid is the upstream name. Using pcsc-ifd-asekey would also be acceptable, but I don't believe that "asekey" for a pcsc driver is right. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Review completed, package is ready for inclusion. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nmavrogi/review/893399-asekey/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /rules.d [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /rules.d [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc21.src.rpm pcsc-lite-asekey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic pcsc-lite-asekey.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic pcsc-lite-asekey.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-provides pcsc-ifd-handler 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- pcsc-lite-asekey (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcsclite.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit) pcsc-lite rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- pcsc-lite-asekey: pcsc-ifd-handler pcsc-lite-asekey pcsc-lite-asekey(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- pcsc-lite-asekey: /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/ifd-ASEKey.bundle/Contents/Linux/libASEKey.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.athena-scs.com/docs/reader-drivers/asekey-3-7-tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5561c54d0629489fcf689ebacc4f8bc3b6305b02ef5675a5d9669dc6669fd6e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5561c54d0629489fcf689ebacc4f8bc3b6305b02ef5675a5d9669dc6669fd6e7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com&gt; --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcsc-lite-asekey Short Description: ASEKey USB token driver Upstream URL: http://www.athena-scs.com/ Owners: ppisar Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc23 |pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-03-26 17:46:10 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc21 |pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc20 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component