Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480870 Bill Nottingham <nott...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |nott...@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Bill Nottingham <nott...@redhat.com> 2009-01-21 15:49:29 EDT --- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. - *** The 'v' in the version seems extraneous. In fact, there seem to be identical tarballs on the upstream download site with and without the 'v'. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - BSD *** The code doesn't specify a license, so it's assumed from the included LICENSE file. Would be nice if the code made it explicit. Given the keys/signing involved in the build process, it would have been highly entertaining if this package was GPL3. Alas, it is not. - License field in spec matches - OK - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible - OK *** 'An' in the summary is probably superfluous. - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A - BuildRequires correct - OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - *** There are READMEs for both the daemon and the wireless regdb that should probably be in %doc. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - N/A - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested rawhide x86_64, F10 x86) - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - *** Should own /usr/lib/crda - No rpmlint output. - *** crda.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/regulatory.rules See below about udev rules. crda.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Can be ignored. - final provides and requires are sane: - *** Arguably, should require udev. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK (tested i386) - Should build on all supported archs - didn't test - Should function as described. - didn't test, don't have appropriate drivers - Should have sane scriptlets. - N/A - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK Random notes not covered above: - We end up building two different upstreams into one package here. It could be done with the wireless db built as a separate package, that includes its pubkey in /etc/pki for the daemon to build later. If the daemon and the regulatory information are going to be updated asynchronously, that might be worthwhile - system udev rules should go in /lib/udev/rules.d, and usually are named XX-regulatory.rules, where XX is some relative numeric priority - the regulatory db is on /usr ... will it be needed before /usr is mounted? - the usage flow seems to be 'user sets a domain -> netlink message to kernel -> uevent -> udev helper to daemon -> reads database -> new netlink message to kernel -> implements restrictions in driver. Seems overly convoluted, but.. meh. - we remove the upstream key, and sign the regulatory db with our own key, generated at build time (and then thrown away). As I understand it, this means users won't be able to drop in new upstream releases of the regulatory db. Is this intentional? -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
