[Bug 794] Review-request: r5u87x-loader - R5U87x webcam firmware loader
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794
Michel Alexandre Salim <Michael.Silvanus(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim <Michael.Silvanus(a)gmail.com> 2009-09-13
16:46:52 ---
Some tiny things to fix, and I'm not sure about the package name (see below),
after that, the package is ready to go.
MUST
• rpmlint
source: two warnings
r5u87x-loader.src: W: invalid-license Distributable
this is fine; that's why it's in RPMfusion anyway
r5u87x-loader.src: W: strange-permission r5u87x-loader-flip.patch 0600
harmless, but probably should be fixed anyway
binaries: license warnings, see above
r5u87x-loader.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
r5u87x-loader-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
? package name:
the package installs a binary called r5u87x-loader, but on the other hand,
most of the content is firmware files. Should probably be r5u87x-firmware,
in common with many other firmware packages
? spec file name
matches SRPM name; see above
OK package guideline-compliant
OK license complies with guidelines
for RPMfusion
? license field accurate
loader.{c,h} are GPLv2+, should probably be GPLv2+ and Distributable
NA license file not deleted -- no license file
OK spec in US English
OK spec legible
OK source matches upstream
note: filename is awkward, but unfortunately it bitbucket does not name the
file as '.tar.bz2'
OK builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded
tested on x86_64. Not using Fedora's Koji as it might be bad to have this
package on Fedora servers, even transiently
OK build dependencies complete
OK own all directories
(depends on udev for /lib/firmware)
OK no dupes in %files
OK permission
OK %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK macros used consistently
OK Package contains code
NA large docs => -doc
OK clean buildroot before install
OK filenames UTF-8
SHOULD
? if license text missing, ask upstream to include it
should probably get upstream to clarify licensing here
• package build in mock on all architectures
• package functioned as described
assuming Hans already tested this
OK scriplets are sane
no scriplets
OK require package not files
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.