[Bug 217259] Review Request: alsa-firmware - Firmware for several ALSA-supported sound card

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: alsa-firmware - Firmware for several ALSA-supported sound card


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217259


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|Package Review              |ORBit




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-07-26 23:13 EST -------
I finally have some free time now, so....

This builds fine; rpmlint says:

W: alsa-firmware strange-permission alsa-firmware.spec 0660
  Kind of weird and quite insecure on many systems.  Should be 644.  I don't 
  know if this matters at all once things are in CVS.

W: alsa-firmware mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 1)
  I don't see this as a problem; fix it if you like.

W: alsa-firmware incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.0.12-1 1.0.12-1.fc8
  rpmlint doesn't like seeing the epoch there, but I think this is an rpmlint 
  issue.

E: alsa-firmware arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object 
   /usr/share/alsa/firmware/mixartloader/miXart8.elf
E: alsa-firmware arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object 
   /lib/firmware/mixart/miXart8.elf
  You explained these initially.

So no big rpmlint problems.

This does not install, due to an unsatisfied dependency on alsa-tools-firmware
>= 1.0.12.  I guess this is a subpackage of alsa-tools which is currently
disabled.  You own alsa-tools so it should be pretty easy to get it turned on. 
I have no hope of testing this anyway so not being able to install it isn't much
of an impediment to a review.

The license does concern me (GPL but there's no real source, just C files
containing data) but if spot has already acked it then I suppose it's OK.  I'll
ping him on it before I approve anything.

The specfile does not consistently use macros.  If you want to use %{__make} and
%{__rm}, you need to use them everywhere and also use %{__mv} and %{__cp}.

The current version seems to be 1.0.14, which came out in June.  Any reason not
to package it?

Because of the missing dependency, I can't determine whether /usr/share/alsa is
properly owned.  It's provided by alsa-utils, but I can't tell if it's in the
dependency chain since alsa-tools-firmware doesn't exist.

* source files match upstream:
   6e7d3104c4de7d031790c1e750067b13e9481bf2855b0806a300d1e697549fbd  
   alsa-firmware-1.0.12.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named
X specfile does not use macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
X latest version is not being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate (not that it matters for a noarch package).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X package fails to install properly due to a missing dependency.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   alsa-firmware = 1.0.12-1.fc8
  =
   alsa-tools-firmware >= 1.0.12
   udev
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I have no hope of testing this 
  pacakge.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
? owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* This is acceptable content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.