[Bug 459828] Review Request: ql2500-firmware - Firmware for qlogic 2500 devices

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Aug 23 15:09:44 UTC 2008

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


--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2008-08-23 11:09:43 EDT ---

MUST Items:

+ rpmlint is silent.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The text of the license(s) is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source:

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum LICENSE* ql2500_fw.bin*
4005328a134054f0fa077bdc37aa64f2  LICENSE
4005328a134054f0fa077bdc37aa64f2  LICENSE.orig
e0eee74a60109539f1ea39c89ef05a92  ql2500_fw.bin
da9804a0f6c216ea79355ee18fbd3d95  ql2500_fw.bin_mid
da9804a0f6c216ea79355ee18fbd3d95  ql2500_fw.bin_mid.orig
e0eee74a60109539f1ea39c89ef05a92  ql2500_fw.bin.orig
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture (ppc).

- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.

There is something, that I can't understand - this package requires
/lib/firmware, and "rpm -qf /lib/firmware" shows that that's a udev's
"Provides:". I don't know whethet this firmware should require udev, so I dont
know whether this is a blocker.On the other hand there atre the following two

- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.

- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.

+ A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf or
+ The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of
Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package contains permissable content.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the

+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

And some remarks:

* You should use %{_lib} instead of /lib 
* You should invoke 'install' command with -p key in order to preserve

Please resolve (or explain me, if I misunderstood something) these issues, and
I'll approve it.

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list