Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm-firmware4.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm-firmware4-1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Firmwares for usb adsl modems based on chipsets Eagle IV chipset rpmlint output : none
ping ?
A couple of comments after a cursory look: 1. Name: ueagle-atm-firmware4 <- where does it come from? The project name is uEagle-ATM and the tarball name is ueagle4-data. 2. Summary is inconsistent with description (Eagle IV in summary vs. Eagle I-III in description). 3. Missing Requires: udev for ownership of /lib/firmware. 4. Unowned directory /lib/firmware/ueagle-atm. 5. Inconsistent macro usage (%{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 6. cp -rf -p <- surely cp -p is enough? 7. A part of the licence text looks fishy: [...] | USER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE PURCHASE OR USE OF THIS SOFTWARE WILL | NOT CREATE OR GIVE GROUNDS FOR A | LICENSE BY IMPLICATION, ESTOPPEL, OR OTHERWISE IN ANY INTELLECTUAL | PROPERTY RIGHTS (PATENT, COPYRIGHT, TRADE SECRET, MASK WORK, OR OTHER | PROPRIETARY RIGHT) EMBODIED IN ANY OTHER IKANOS HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE | EITHER SOLELY OR IN COMBINATION WITH THIS SOFTWARE. [...] and should be vetted by Fedora Legal.
Eh, its okay for a firmware license. Lifting FE-Legal.
So it's been nearly two months since comment 2 and over a month since FE-Legal was lifted; did you intend to comment on the issues raised? Or should this ticket be closed?
1. Origin of the Name: From Fedora Package Guidelines : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware "Firmware packages must be named <foo>-firmware, where <foo> is the driver or other hardware component that the firmware is for." The driver name is ueagle-atm, the number 4 because this firmware is for Chipset 4. 2.Summary is inconsistent with description : Fixed 3.Missing Requires: udev for ownership of /lib/firmware : Fixed 4.Unowned directory /lib/firmware/ueagle-atm : Fixed 5.Inconsistent macro usage (%{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) : Fixed 6.cp -rf -p <- surely cp -p is enough? : fixed 7. Fedora Legal status : Fixed in comment 3 Spec URL : http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm-firmware4.spec SRPM URL : http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm-firmware4-1.0-2.fc11.src.rpm
You should either move the 4 to the version or have it appended to the name. I suggest: ueagle-atm4-firmware
ok spot, seems a good suggestion Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm4-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-3.fc11.src.rpm
oops, Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm4-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-3.fc12.src.rpm
I'll review it.
Notes: 1) Source0 link should be http://download.gna.org/ueagleatm/ikanos/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz 2) I don't like the idea to modify license file in any means, even fixing CRLF. 3) Typo. You definitely mean "%dir /lib/firmware/ueagle-atm" in %files section, not simply "%dir /lib/firmware" The rest of the spec looks good. Here is my formal REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent, however I suppose that these two warnings may be safely ignored. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-3.fc12.noarch.rpm ueagle-atm4-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Chipset -> Chip set, Chip-set, Chipped ueagle-atm4-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Chipset -> Chip set, Chip-set, Chipped 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: sha256sum ../SOURCES/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz* 1e3547821d69b9f576add1e35223df159aadfd9e3dae913b6429a1cbbe1a3691 ../SOURCES/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz 1e3547821d69b9f576add1e35223df159aadfd9e3dae913b6429a1cbbe1a3691 ../SOURCES/ueagle4-data-1.0.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All additional build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. None, actually. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package must own all directories that it creates. See my note #3 above regarding typo. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. - The package must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Again, see my note #3 above. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please fix issues, mentioned above, and I'll continue.
Updated. Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm4-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc12.src.rpm 1) Fixed. 2) The CRLF fix was done to remove an rpmlint warning. 3) Fixed.
Regarding license - I'd rather package it as is, disregarding rpmling warning, so, please, consider removing this fix. Anyway, this package is APPROVED Hicham, are you already sponsored by someone?
Yes, my fas account is hicham
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ueagle-atm4-firmware Short Description: Firmware for USB ADSL Modems based on Eagle IV Chipset Owners: hicham Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: hicham
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). I added a F-13 branch to the request.
ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc13
ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc12
ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc11
ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ueagle-atm4-firmware-1.0-4.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.