[Bug 794] Review-request: r5u87x-loader - R5U87x webcam firmware loader

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794


Michel Alexandre Salim <Michael.Silvanus at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim <Michael.Silvanus at 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.