[Bug 346171] Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for hardware based on Conexant's CX23415/CX23416 codec chip

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for hardware based on Conexant's CX23415/CX23416 codec chip


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=346171


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-10-23 01:13 EST -------
Hmm, something's still not right.  Ah:

install -pm 0644 license-end-user.txt \
  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/firmware/ivtv-license-end-user.txt
install -pm 0644 license-end-user.txt \
  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/firmware/ivtv-license-end-user.txt

You install the same file twice; I guess one of those is supposed to install
license-oemihvisv.txt instead.  I'll just progress with the review after
changing one of those.

You do end up including the license files twice.  I guess this is OK, as now
this package mirrors almost exactly what the ipw2200 package does.

Is it expected that the firmware will one day acquire a version?  If not, then
there's no reason why you couldn't just use the date as the version instead of
using 0 as the version and encoding the date in the release.  I'll leave that up
to you; you can decide to change it in the future if you want.

* source files match upstream:
   9d9ecb370ea3ca90956f05e0167f75325b2ccd6a17faf3fbc18475f4da0b5dda  
   firmware-20070217.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is acceptable for firmware.
* license text included in package in the required location.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane (no runtime dependencies)
* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* acceptable content (firmware)
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED, provided you fix the bit with the missing license file.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.