You don't seem to have an srpm.  I built one from the spec and everything looks
good except for one issue:

You cannot package the two .txt files as %doc; the license requires that they be
included and installed in the same directory as the firmware itself.  This means
that they must be included even in a --nodocs installation.

The only problem with keeping them in /lib/firmware is that they have somewhat
generic names.  I don't think anything prohibits you from renaming the license
files; maybe you could prefix them with "ivtv-" so there would be slightly less
confusion.

Spec URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/ivtv/ivtv-firmware.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/ivtv/ivtv-firmware-0-2.20070217.src.rpm
Description: Firmware for hardware based on Conexant's CX23415/CX23416 codec chip

Done... 

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.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name:      ivtv-firmware
Short Description: Firmware for hardware based on Conexant's CX23415/CX23416
codec chip
Owners:            kwizart
Branches:          F-8 F-7
InitialCC:         <empty>
Commits by cvsextras: yes

Thx for the review, I will only build on devel for now... so I could have
feedbacks... from rawhiders...

perl-Video-ivtv is might be around...(still missing ivtv and
perl-Video-Frequency)...

cvs done.

Please also see bug #250970 for a competing review. I don't think it is correct
for a reviewer to close a submitter's bug who filed in to the /wiki/Vacation
page. and push the package as his own. Especially if the items he didn't approve
were rather minor or even false leading to a worse package.

Please undo this review or escalate this to the appropriate instance whatever
that is, fesco or else.

No need to raise to fesco with this...
You just need to produce rational and that will be fine...

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: ivtv-firmware
Updated Description: Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series

*** Bug 250970 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

cvs done.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 250970 ***