[Bug 516312] Review Request: ueagle-atm4-firmware - Firmwares for USB ADSL Modems based on Eagle IV Chipset

[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=516312

--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-03-07 10:15:09 EST ---
Notes:

1) Source0 link should be
http://download.gna.org/ueagleatm/ikanos/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz
2) I don't like the idea to modify license file in any means, even fixing CRLF.
3) Typo. You definitely mean "%dir /lib/firmware/ueagle-atm" in %files section,
not simply "%dir /lib/firmware"

The rest of the spec looks good. Here is my formal 

REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is not silent, however I suppose that these two warnings may be
safely ignored.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-3.fc12.noarch.rpm 
ueagle-atm4-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Chipset -> Chip
set, Chip-set, Chipped
ueagle-atm4-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Chipset ->
Chip set, Chip-set, Chipped
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.
+ 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.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: sha256sum ../SOURCES/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz*
1e3547821d69b9f576add1e35223df159aadfd9e3dae913b6429a1cbbe1a3691 
../SOURCES/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz
1e3547821d69b9f576add1e35223df159aadfd9e3dae913b6429a1cbbe1a3691 
../SOURCES/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All additional build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. None,
actually.
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 must own all directories that it creates. See my note #3 above
regarding typo.
+ 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 must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. Again, see my note #3 above.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Please fix 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.