[Bug 525389] Review Request: madwimax - Driver for mobile WiMAX devices based on Samsung CMC-730 chip

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=525389





--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx>  2009-09-25 03:44:55 EDT ---
Assuming, that FE-LEGAL probably will be unblocked, here is my

REVIEW:

    *  rpmlint is not silent.

[petro@Sulaco ~]$ rpmlint
~/fuse/sshfs/work/Desktop/madwimax-0.1.1-1.fc11.ppc.rpm 
madwimax.ppc: E: summary-too-long User-space driver for mobile WiMAX (802.16e)
devices based on Samsung CMC-730 chip
madwimax.ppc: E: description-line-too-long madWiMAX is a reverse-engineered
Linux driver for mobile WiMAX (802.16e) devices based on Samsung CMC-730 chip.
These devices are currently supported:
madwimax.ppc: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/z60_madwimax.rules
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
[petro@Sulaco ~]$

Please, shorten these lines.

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

[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum madwimax-0.1.1.tar.gz*
17ac297934654663586df837dcff2bd6d3bbabddd76efdffa26713b07e08ad5f 
madwimax-0.1.1.tar.gz
17ac297934654663586df837dcff2bd6d3bbabddd76efdffa26713b07e08ad5f 
madwimax-0.1.1.tar.gz.1
[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji logs above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The packages does NOT contain copies of system libraries.
+ 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.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
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). [26]
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, let's wait for the reaction from the Legal Team.

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]