[Bug 660393] Review Request: netxen-firmware - QLogic Linux Intelligent Ethernet (3000 and 3100 Series) Adapter Firmware

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660393

--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-12-23 04:06:49 EST ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are just a false positives

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/netxen-firmware-4.0.534-2.fc12.noarch.rpm 
netxen-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) QLogic -> Q Logic,
Logic, Logistic
netxen-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US QLogic -> Q
Logic, Logic, Logistic
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ 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
(redistributable w/o modifications).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, 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, as
provided in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum phanfw.bin* LICENCE.phanfw*
e1444f55fb6a06d5580dd65f4c5e4c0e58b39e8d92833db12e7cb05cf712aa0f  phanfw.bin
e1444f55fb6a06d5580dd65f4c5e4c0e58b39e8d92833db12e7cb05cf712aa0f  phanfw.bin.1
95e24016be3ed63247fe9cb34011c20008217216934375118d9a77d799d6b7b5 
LICENCE.phanfw
d71de4bbee2641d2901b7a8e9155c36da4d862803a92d633e0e2391a6b66cd03 
LICENCE.phanfw.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

The LICENSE.phanfw file differs from downloaded copy. Although the changes are
just cosmetic (cheched with diff), I'd really prefer to deal with the file
provided by upstream.

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.

- The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. However there is one unowned directory - /lib/firmware (which is
owned by udev). Please add "Requires: udev".

+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Please, address the two issues mentioned above and I'll continue.

-- 
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.