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@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-09 07:19:10 EST --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent [petro@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@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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review