[Bug 1999] Review Request: wl-kmod - Kernel module for Broadcom wireless devices

Nicolas Viéville nicolas.vieville at univ-valenciennes.fr
Wed Oct 26 18:37:06 CEST 2011


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.fc15.src.rpm

$ 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



More information about the rpmfusion-developers mailing list