Bug 383281

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>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, kwizart, notting, rvokal
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-05-19 12:50:46 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	182235

Description John W. Linville 2007-11-14 19:58:45 UTC

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 20:15:34 UTC

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 21:36:54 UTC

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 21:59:01 UTC

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 22:07:46 UTC

(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.