[Bug 562847] Review Request: bfa-firmware - Brocade Fibre Channel HBA Firmware

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 9 12:19:13 UTC 2010


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=562847

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-02-09 07:19:10 EST ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is silent

[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/bfa-firmware-2.1.2.1-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco 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 DOES NOT meet the Packaging Guidelines - one missing "Requires:
udev" (owner of /lib/firmware). Other things looks sane.

+ 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 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, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

05751f5b37c2a833533878b6ed20b4b97b2292a276e7e4e3cf563c295a6a8c38  cbfw.bin
67278ade27b661c8434460720cc72dfb99201a1ccd13e3532ff697fee79f1d0b  ctfw.bin

+ 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 owns all directories that it creates.
+ 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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ 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.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So, please, add the only missing Requires, and I'll continue.


BTW are there any particular reasons not to package ver. 2010-02-03 ? ( 
)http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mcgrof/firmware/ar9170/2010-02-03/

-- 
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