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=533877 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-10 05:16:13 EDT --- One issue still remains - since the package places something in /lib/firmware, when it should contain "Requires: udev". This should be aded to others firmware packages (some f them you;re maintaining). REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/iwl6000-firmware-9.176.4.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@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 meets the Packaging Guidelines, except the issue, noted above. + 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. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum iwlwifi-6000-ucode-9.176.4.1.tgz* ac1923870c5d041d238d1a919b8dbb9cea46eaa28e7d06ef7bb5b0dbef316fbb iwlwifi-6000-ucode-9.176.4.1.tgz ac1923870c5d041d238d1a919b8dbb9cea46eaa28e7d06ef7bb5b0dbef316fbb iwlwifi-6000-ucode-9.176.4.1.tgz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + 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. Please, fix the only issue, 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review