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: sdparm - List or change SCSI disk parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216519
------- Additional Comments From peter@thecodergeek.com 2006-11-23 17:13 EST ------- Okey dokey. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Mock was being really weird last night. Let's get this party started (as the saying goes)...
---- ** MUST items ** GOOD: rpmlint is silent on the source and binary RPMs.
GOOD: Package name and version follows the Naming Guidelines
GOOD: The spec file matches the base package name: %{name}.spec
GOOD: The package has an open-source compatible license (BSD) and meets the legal criteria for Fedora. The License tag in the spec file properly reflects this.
GOOD: Spec file is written in American English and is legible (though I would align the tags at the top with spaces or tabs, but that's merely personal preference AFAIK, and definitely not a blocker in any way).
GOOD: Source matches that of upstream. $ md5sum sdparm-1.00-*.tgz 1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5 sdparm-1.00-srpm.tgz 1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5 sdparm-1.00-upstream.tgz
GOOD: Package successfully builds into binary RPMs on FC6/x86.
GOOD: BuildRequires and Requires are correct.(The fact that they are not needed probably makes this a bit simpler. ^_^)
GOOD: The %files section is okay. File and directory ownership does not conflict with system packages; and no duplicates are listed. The %defattr call is correct.
GOOD: Package contains a %clean section, which consists of 'rm -rf %{buildroot}'
GOOD: Macro usage is consistent.
GOOD: Package contains code and permissible content.
GOOD: %doc files do not affect runtime of program.
** SHOULD items ** GOOD: A copy of the license is included in the tarball as %doc ("COPYING").
GOOD: Package successfully builds in Mock for FC6 and Devel (both x86).
GOOD: Packaged utility functions with no apparent errors or segfaults (tested with a WD Raptor SATA hard disk).
** Blockers ** BAD: The %changelog entries of those modifications before yours need to be made consistent with the Packaging Guidelines. See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300... for more information.
BAD: The INSTALL file should not be packaged as %doc. Refer to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c... for more info.
** Not Applicable ** N/A: The package does not require ExcludeArch semantics.
N/A: The package does not require %find_lang semantics, since it installs no locales.
N/A: The package does not require %post/%postun calls to /sbin/ldconfig, since it installs no shared libraries.
N/A: Package is not relocatable.
N/A: There is no large documentation, so a -doc subpackage is not needed.
N/A: No header files, shared or static library files, so no -devel subpackage is needed. Package installs no libtool archives.
N/A: The package contains no pkgconfig (.pc) files.
N/A: Not a GUI application, so no .desktop file needed.
N/A: The package does not use translations, so no translated %description or Summary tag is available.
N/A: No scriplets are used.
N/A: No subpackages exist, so worries about fully-versioned Requires for those are not present.
----
I cannot sponsor you, but looking through other review requests you've posted for eterm and such, I see that Ed Hill sponsored you in bug #182175; so I am able to APPROVE this once you fix these two blockers (assuming that his sponsorship still stands).