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=601771 Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-08 13:06:33 EDT --- Well, it appears to just be s/6000/6050/ on the iwl6000-firmware package. But still, for completeness sake... MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - ok - Spec file matches base package name. - ok - Spec has consistant macro usage. - ok - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - ok - License - standard firmware license - License field in spec matches - "Redistributable, no modification permitted" - License file included in package - ok - Spec in American English - ok - Spec is legible. - ok - Sources match upstream md5sum: 1cbca537d7c9af2c8d1f40b00cb430055b6f06de4b6d29e2a318bb0eae3352ff iwlwifi-6050-ucode-9.201.4.1.tgz OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - oK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - N/A - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested x86_64) - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. -OK - No rpmlint output. - *** iwl6050-firmware.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/iwl6050-firmware-9.201.4.1/README iwl6050-firmware.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/iwl6050-firmware-9.201.4.1/LICENSE That can be fixed, but it's not critical. - final provides and requires are sane: - OK SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - didn't try - Should build on all supported archs - didn't try - Should function as described. - OK (tested with 6250 part) - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK APPROVED. Feel free to fix the docs perms. -- 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