Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959734 --- Comment #7 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #5) > Yes, there will be more firmware added here. Upstream is constanly wotking on > new hardware, and some of the hardware will require firmware. I didn't want > to > have a subpackage for each device, because I don't want to end up with a > texlive-live situation (almost a thousand packages -- a real pain to yum > update) > I will leave it at free/nonfree for now (with the appropriate license field). > I will deal with new firmware licenses as they are added. Okay, sounds good. :-) -- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Status: NEEDS WORK ==== Issues ==== [!]: rpmlint is still complaining about one of the descriptions. Make sure they're all wrapped properly. [!]: Unversioned requires on filesystem subpackage. Yeah, it's unlikely to change much, but let's follow the guidelines here and add "= %{version}-%{release}" to the dependencies on the filesystem package. [!]: Spec URL and Spec in SRPM don't match. Please make sure they're in sync on the next update. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source2 (oscione-vhdl.tar.gz) Source1 (fx2-firmware.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sigrok-firmware-nonfree-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm sigrok-firmware-free-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm sigrok-firmware-filesystem-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm sigrok-firmware-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.src.rpm sigrok-firmware.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsigrok sigrok-firmware.src: E: description-line-too-long C sigrok-firmware only contains firmware files which have an explicit permission/license sigrok-firmware.src: W: invalid-url Source0: sigrok-firmware-0.1.0-20130426git83e0802.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint is still complaining about one of the descriptions. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sigrok-firmware-free sigrok-firmware-filesystem sigrok-firmware-nonfree 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' OK Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/959734-sigrok-firmware/srpm/sigrok-firmware.spec 2013-05-06 16:59:40.015476355 -0600 +++ /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/959734-sigrok-firmware/srpm-unpacked/sigrok-firmware.spec 2013-05-06 16:59:42.380477141 -0600 @@ -7,5 +7,5 @@ URL: http://www.sigrok.org/ # $ git clone git://sigrok.org/sigrok-firmware -# $ cd sigrok-firmware +# $ cd sigrok-firmwares # $ git checkout 83e0802146c2c6c211dc68fe18c6d556f04469b7 # $ sh autogen.sh Please make sure these are in sync when you do the next one. Requires -------- sigrok-firmware-nonfree-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sigrok-firmware-filesystem sigrok-firmware-free-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sigrok-firmware-filesystem sigrok-firmware-filesystem-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): OK Provides -------- sigrok-firmware-nonfree-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm: sigrok-firmware-nonfree = 0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20 sigrok-firmware-free-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm: sigrok-firmware-free = 0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20 sigrok-firmware-filesystem-0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20.noarch.rpm: sigrok-firmware-filesystem = 0.1.0-2.20130426git83e0802.fc20 OK MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.osciprime.com/repo/oscione-vhdl.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0d2a096d304c2485d2168cf55f2779ddae05042b61d4b2a8c0178534b2d24846 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0d2a096d304c2485d2168cf55f2779ddae05042b61d4b2a8c0178534b2d24846 http://www.osciprime.com/repo/fx2-firmware.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 025daa8504e6bc59b46077b74bc469dcd11d0d10f2797fd5a4fc0669a23fcff0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 025daa8504e6bc59b46077b74bc469dcd11d0d10f2797fd5a4fc0669a23fcff0 OK Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (f4bc12d) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b959734 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TdxGuS7sTK&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review