https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029 --- Comment #2 from Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Okay, I've done an initial pass through the spec, and a few things of note to take care of: 1) There's mixed use of both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. These two are equivalent, but it's preferred that you only use one or the other consistently through the spec. 2) The COPYING file these days needs to be listed in the spec file under %license, rather than as %doc. 3) Formatting on the changelog entry is slightly off, there should be a space between the initial "*" and the date entry, and the version at the tail end of the line should be version-release, i.e. "0.5.223-1". 4) Fedora guidelines complain about unversioned library files dropped straight into %libdir, though putting a .a file into a -devel-static package seems to be the norm for all rdma hardware-specific libibverbs-based driver libs like this, so I think we can leave that as-is. 5) the Source: url to the tarball is a bit off, it says ./downloads/i40iw/., but it should be ./downloads/libi40iw/. instead. 6) the file dropped under libibverbs.d/ should probably be marked at %config, as you can edit the file to alter behavior, and don't want that overwritten by a package update. I've looked at another libibverbs driver or two, and they're done as %config as well. 7) The spec says license GPL/BSD, and looking at the various sources, that seems accurate, as I see both GPLv2 and GPLv3, and various BSD license text in the source. However, the COPYING file looks to only mention GPLv2. May need multiple license files here to cover all cases. Also, rpmlint complains that "GPL/BSD" isn't a valid value for the License: field. Looking at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines I think "GPLv2+ and BSD" or "GPLv2+ or BSD" might be appropriate. 8) BuildRequires on libibverbs-devel are not versioned, which may well be just fine, but I'd like to double-check that there isn't some minimal version required for proper libi40iw support. (I seem to recall the hfi1 bits requiring libibverbs 1.3.0 or later, thus why I ask). 9) BuildRoot doesn't actually need to be explicitly defined, and the preference of late is actually that we let RPM internals figure it out, so the BuildRoot: ... line could actually be removed from the spec. Not a hard requirement though, particularly if looking to support much older versions of RPM in older distributions with the same spec. Most of this is pretty trivial to fix up, but the one that really needs the most effort is probably the license bit, to make sure we can get through legal with the proper licensing documented here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx