Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for hardware based on Conexant's CX23415/CX23416 codec chip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=346171 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-10-23 01:13 EST ------- Hmm, something's still not right. Ah: install -pm 0644 license-end-user.txt \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/firmware/ivtv-license-end-user.txt install -pm 0644 license-end-user.txt \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/firmware/ivtv-license-end-user.txt You install the same file twice; I guess one of those is supposed to install license-oemihvisv.txt instead. I'll just progress with the review after changing one of those. You do end up including the license files twice. I guess this is OK, as now this package mirrors almost exactly what the ipw2200 package does. Is it expected that the firmware will one day acquire a version? If not, then there's no reason why you couldn't just use the date as the version instead of using 0 as the version and encoding the date in the release. I'll leave that up to you; you can decide to change it in the future if you want. * source files match upstream: 9d9ecb370ea3ca90956f05e0167f75325b2ccd6a17faf3fbc18475f4da0b5dda firmware-20070217.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is acceptable for firmware. * license text included in package in the required location. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane (no runtime dependencies) * owns the directory it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * acceptable content (firmware) * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED, provided you fix the bit with the missing license file. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review