Bug 230164

review is coming ;-)

Just one thing:

 hardcoded path must not be use.

 use "%{_lib}/firmware" instead of "/lib/firmware"

typo: it's Hardcoded library path 

OK - 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 is Distributable
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum
OK - BuildRequires isn't required
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Package builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+  - rpmlint output:
SRPM: E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored
RPM : E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored

OK - build in mock (FC-6 and FC-devel).
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Typo :

+  - licences and Doc are requesting

Source download link is invalid.

Updated link (changes from .com to .com.tw )
Fixed licence field

Spec URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt71w-firmware.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt71w-firmware-1.8-3.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm
Description: Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices 

It seems you forgot to block Fe-Legal and to assign this review.

I have send a new mail to Ralink to ask them for legacl clearance for shipping 
the RT61 and RT73 firmware together with FC.
I have CC'ed Nicolas Chauvet, Bill Nottingham and John Linville.

First responce from Ralink seemed rather positive, so hopefully they will 
indeed a nice license to their firmware that allows redistribution.

Thx for your help Ivo!
I've received the Ralink license by mail, now i think we can re-distribute
Rakink's-firmware.

But from a packager point of view, I usually have to download files from a
public place...(so I can also take care of the timestamp, but this is a minor
problem)...

Actually, what could be better is to download the license from the Ralink website.
Or even better, to have it within the firmware archives...

Thx again from your help!

I will update the spec file (and drop dist tag)
Also, notting reminded me that firmware name is taken from the kernel module
which is used (rt73usb in this case, and rt61pci for rt61-firmware )
I will probably need to rename the spec file name, which was taken from the
archive name (rt71w-firmware) or taken from the chipset suffix rt2571w...

SRPM:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt73usb-firmware-1.8-4.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt73usb-firmware.spec
Description: Firmware for Ralink® RT2571W/RT2671 A/B/G network adaptors

%changelog
- Disable dist tag
- Preserve timestamp
- Add license from Ralink
- Improved summary and description (taken from iwl4965-firmware scheme )

We can remove FE-Legal as the bundled firmware was provided!
(license is approved by Tom "spot" Callaway in #230161 )

Hello,

I'll check & finalize this next week ;)

ok,
this package can be approved.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name:      rt73usb-firmware
Short Description: Firmware for Ralink® RT2571W/RT2671 A/B/G network adaptors
Owners:            kwizart
Branches:          F-7
InitialCC:         <empty>
Commits by cvsextras: yes

Thx for the review

cvs done.