http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999 --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen <tla(a)rasmil.dk&gt; 2011-10-26 18:03:03 --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [!] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. No problem for rpmfusion nonfree [x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] : MUST - Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10) Multiple BuildRoot definitions found [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13) [!] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. No problem for rpmfusion nonfree [x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. No problem, Broadcom only makes i386 & X86_64 sources. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [?] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. use magic spells, so there is no visible %files section [x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] : MUST - Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. (EPEL5) [x] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. [!] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/1999/hybrid-portsrc_x86_32-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : c0074a1622c75916442e26763ddf47d0 MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/1999/hybrid-portsrc_x86_64-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : cac172f7422fa43264049c7065fe21d6 MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e broadcom-wl-kmodtool-excludekernel-filterfile : MD5SUM this package : 5df50b59ac8a311c81c9ad569ffc2225 MD5SUM upstream package : upstream source not found [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-] : SHOULD - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x] : SHOULD - Package functions as described. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Source0: http://www.broadcom.com/docs/linux_sta/hybrid-portsrc_x86_32-v5_100_82_38... (hybrid-portsrc_x86_32-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz) Source1: http://www.broadcom.com/docs/linux_sta/hybrid-portsrc_x86_64-v5_100_82_38... (hybrid-portsrc_x86_64-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz) Source11: broadcom-wl-kmodtool-excludekernel-filterfile (broadcom-wl-kmodtool-excludekernel-filterfile) Patch0: broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-license.patch (broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-license.patch) Patch1: broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-init_MUTEX.patch (broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-init_MUTEX.patch) [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [!] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. %define buildforkernels current Issues: [!] : MUST - Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10) Multiple BuildRoot definitions found remove the buildroot: line, not needed any more [!] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/1999/hybrid-portsrc_x86_32-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : c0074a1622c75916442e26763ddf47d0 MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/1999/hybrid-portsrc_x86_64-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : cac172f7422fa43264049c7065fe21d6 MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e broadcom-wl-kmodtool-excludekernel-filterfile : MD5SUM this package : 5df50b59ac8a311c81c9ad569ffc2225 MD5SUM upstream package : upstream source not found This is ok -- 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

Thanks! Done! One question: as you mentioned in your review comments, this version is not the very last one (Broadcom published the last one yesterday 25/10/2011). What should I do to be the most "upstream" as possible? Open a new review for the upstream version or wait for this one to be accomplished and upgrade to the upstream version after? Excuse me for such a question, but I'm not already very familiar with these procedures. SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod.spec SRPMS: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.... $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wl-kmod.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm kmod-wl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage kmod-wl.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C wl kernel module(s) for 2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64 kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl/wl.ko kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: no-documentation kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: E: kernel-modules-not-in-kernel-packages /lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl/wl.ko kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: E: kernel-modules-not-in-kernel-packages /lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/wl-kmod-debuginfo-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Nicolas Viéville

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999 --- Comment #4 from NVieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr&gt; 2011-10-26 19:23:41 --- (In reply to comment #3) Thanks! Done! One question: as you mentioned in your review comments, this version is not the very last one (Broadcom published the last one yesterday 25/10/2011). What should I do to be the most "upstream" as possible? Open a new review for the upstream version or wait for this one to be accomplished and upgrade to the upstream version after? Excuse me for such a question, but I'm not already very familiar with these procedures. One more question, the spec file contains actually this directive %define buildforkernels newest But to build the akmod-wl package this one must be set to: %define buildforkernels current How do I should set it to meet the akmods rpmfusion standards as this package provides a new version of the Broadcom drivers? SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod.spec SRPMS: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.... $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wl-kmod.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm kmod-wl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage kmod-wl.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C wl kernel module(s) for 2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64 kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl/wl.ko kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: no-documentation kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: E: kernel-modules-not-in-kernel-packages /lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl/wl.ko kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: E: kernel-modules-not-in-kernel-packages /lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/wl-kmod-debuginfo-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999 --- Comment #6 from NVieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr&gt; 2011-10-26 20:27:02 --- (In reply to comment #5) As you suggested, I think I'll wait the first release of this package before updating to upstream version. Thanks for the advice. Ok! I've noticed that too. Thanks for your review. -- 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999 --- Comment #8 from NVieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr&gt; 2011-10-28 15:11:36 --- (In reply to comment #5) After reading: - http://rpmfusion.org/Packaging/KernelModules/Akmods - http://rpmfusion.org/Packaging/KernelModules/Kmods1 - http://rpmfusion.org/Packaging/KernelModules/Kmods2 I've modified the "buildforkernels" macros section of the spec file to: #define buildforkernels newest %define buildforkernels current #define buildforkernels akmods To be sure the new akmod package will be build for the current kernel. Once the akmod package built, if I correctly understood the documentation, I have to revert it to: %define buildforkernels newest #define buildforkernels current #define buildforkernels akmods This have to be kept until the next new upstream release of the wl-kmod needs an akmod package to be built. Thanks for commenting this if I've misunderstood the documentation. I'll ask to the list too. New spec file and srpms file provided: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod.spec SRPMS: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.... rpmlint as usual. I can provide rpmlint outputs if needed. -- 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. You are the assignee for the bug.