Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: b43legacy-firmware - V3 firmware for Broadcom wireless devices|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||John W. Linville <linville>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Bill Nottingham <notting>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-package-review, kwizart, notting, rvokal|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-05-19 08:50:46 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description John W. Linville 2007-11-14 14:58:45 EST
Spec URL: http://www.tuxdriver.com/download/b43legacy-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://www.tuxdriver.com/download/b43legacy-firmware-295.14-3.src.rpm Description: This package contains the V3 firmware required to use the b43legacy driver with most wireless cores from Broadcom.
Comment 1 John W. Linville 2007-11-14 15:15:34 EST
Please use these links (once the big stuff gets uploaded): http://linville.fedorapeople.org/b43legacy-firmware.spec http://linville.fedorapeople.org/b43legacy-firmware-295.14-3.src.rpm
Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2007-11-14 16:36:54 EST
MUST: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - *** *** The 'version' used is odd, and I don't see where it's coming from. - License - *** *** If FE-Legal is OK, I suppose it's OK. We're sort of inferring the terms, though. - 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: *** *** Link in spec file does not work. - Package needs ExcludeArch - *** *** Might need Exclude/ExclusiveArch to match where driver is built. Is this built on all arches? - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - 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 - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (noarch) - 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. - OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK (tested i386) - Should build on all supported archs - OK (noarch) - Should function as described. - didn't test, no hardware - Should have sane scriptlets. - N/A - Should have dist tag - N/A - Should package latest version - ... what is latest?
Comment 3 John W. Linville 2007-11-14 16:59:01 EST
The firmware version is reported by b43legacy when the driver loads it. Is ExclusiveArch appropriate for a noarch package? Re: latest -- the driver needs a specific version of the firmware.
Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2007-11-14 17:07:46 EST
(In reply to comment #3) > The firmware version is reported by b43legacy when the driver loads it. OK. Any way to determine that from the outside? strings? > Is ExclusiveArch appropriate for a noarch package? We use ExcludeArch to avoid shipping firmware packages on arches where they don't make sense. For example, iwl3945-firmware has: # This is so that the noarch packages don't appear for these archs ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64 > Re: latest -- the driver needs a specific version of the firmware. OK.