http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1998 --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen <tla(a)rasmil.dk&gt; 2011-10-26 17:11:30 --- 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. Not a 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 Buildroot is not need any more [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) [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. no problems as this is rpmfusion-nonfree [x] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr [-] : 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. This is a i686 & x86_64 only, no problem here [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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 - No %config files under /usr. [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. [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/README.txt : MD5SUM this package : 24976921c7b8854ed2cd56fbc5b1c13c MD5SUM upstream package : 24976921c7b8854ed2cd56fbc5b1c13c broadcom-wl-blacklist.conf : MD5SUM this package : 7b6a8f3ca263a3bb2e49124ade3cf010 MD5SUM upstream package : upstream source not found /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/hybrid-portsrc_x86_32-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : c0074a1622c75916442e26763ddf47d0 MD5SUM upstream package : c0074a1622c75916442e26763ddf47d0 /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/hybrid-portsrc_x86_64-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : cac172f7422fa43264049c7065fe21d6 MD5SUM upstream package : cac172f7422fa43264049c7065fe21d6 /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/bcma.txt : MD5SUM this package : 521622b664cdfe9a6e2b1aea1b2e5c7b MD5SUM upstream package : 521622b664cdfe9a6e2b1aea1b2e5c7b [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. [x] : 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://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/sources/broadcom/5_100_82_38/h... (hybrid-portsrc_x86_32-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz) Source1: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/sources/broadcom/5_100_82_38/h... (hybrid-portsrc_x86_64-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz) Source2: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/sources/broadcom/5_100_82_38/R... (README.txt) Source3: broadcom-wl-blacklist.conf (broadcom-wl-blacklist.conf) Source4: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/sources/broadcom/5_100_82_38/b... (bcma.txt) Patch0: broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-license.patch (broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-license.patch) Patch1: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/sources/broadcom/5_100_82_38/5... (5_100_82_38.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. [?] : 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. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!] : MUST - Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10) Multiple BuildRoot definitions found Remove the BuildRoot: line, not need in latest fedora releases [!] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/README.txt : MD5SUM this package : 24976921c7b8854ed2cd56fbc5b1c13c MD5SUM upstream package : 24976921c7b8854ed2cd56fbc5b1c13c broadcom-wl-blacklist.conf : MD5SUM this package : 7b6a8f3ca263a3bb2e49124ade3cf010 MD5SUM upstream package : upstream source not found /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/hybrid-portsrc_x86_32-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : c0074a1622c75916442e26763ddf47d0 MD5SUM upstream package : c0074a1622c75916442e26763ddf47d0 /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/hybrid-portsrc_x86_64-v5_100_82_38.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : cac172f7422fa43264049c7065fe21d6 MD5SUM upstream package : cac172f7422fa43264049c7065fe21d6 /home/timlau/tmp/reviewhelper/bcma.txt : MD5SUM this package : 521622b664cdfe9a6e2b1aea1b2e5c7b MD5SUM upstream package : 521622b664cdfe9a6e2b1aea1b2e5c7b 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 for reviewing. Excuse-me for my bad English, but if I understand you correctly I think you are right! These sources tarball files aren't installed anywhere in this package from fc13 to this proposed version in fc15. I wrote the spec file for this package by taking the most part of it from the previous version spec file in fc15. But I think the only thing extracted from these files is the LICENCE.txt file installed in /usr/share/doc/broadcom-wl-version directory. As this seems to be the same thing in all the previous packages, do I have to correct this or do you think it's possible to keep it like this? Cordially, -- Nicolas Viéville

Thanks! Done! Same question as for Review 1999 about upstream version of this package! 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/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl.spec SRPMS: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl-5.100.... $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/broadcom-wl.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Nicolas Viéville

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1998 --- Comment #5 from NVieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr&gt; 2011-10-26 19:25:34 --- (In reply to comment #4) 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/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl.spec SRPMS: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl-5.100.... $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/broadcom-wl.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.noarch.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=1998 --- Comment #7 from NVieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr&gt; 2011-10-26 20:21:52 --- (In reply to comment #6) Thanks to remember me this point. 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=1998 --- Comment #9 from Tim Lauridsen <tla(a)rasmil.dk&gt; 2011-10-27 11:22:24 --- (In reply to comment #8) Yes, you understand me right, maybe it is some licensing issue, there the license text should be distributed with the source files, this way the tar.gz files is included in the src.rpm, but not in the binary .rpm. It was a little strange, so i asked for a reason :) -- 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=1998 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- 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.