[Bug 245708] Review Request: scsi-target-utils - SCSI target daemon and tools

[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: scsi-target-utils  - SCSI target daemon and tools


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245708


notting at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com  2007-07-02 17:21 EST -------
MUST:
 - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - ***

Upstream package name appears to be 'tgt'. While scsi-target-utils is certainly
more informative, is there a particular reason for the disconnect? I also notice
the upstream project name is 'stgt' while upstream source is 'tgt'.

 - Spec file matches base package name. - OK
 - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK
 - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
 - License - OK
 - License field in spec matches - OK
 - License file included in package - ***

A copy of GPL2 is not included. Doesn't appear to be included upstream, either.

 - Spec in American English - OK
 - Spec is legible. - OK
 - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK

 - Package needs ExcludeArch - No
 - BuildRequires correct - OK
 - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A
 - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A
 - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - N/A
 - 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. - N/A
 - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - N/A

 - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - N/A
 - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - N/A
 - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - N/A
 - .so files in -devel subpackage. - N/A
 - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - N/A
 - .la files are removed. - N/A

 - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - N/A

 - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK
 - 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. - OK
 - No rpmlint output. ***

Source rpm:

W: scsi-target-utils strange-permission tgtd.init 0755 - can be ignored

Binary rpm:
E: scsi-target-utils init-script-without-chkconfig-postin /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd
E: scsi-target-utils init-script-without-chkconfig-preun /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd

See below.

E: scsi-target-utils incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd tgtd]

Typo?

W: scsi-target-utils no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd

See below.

W: scsi-target-utils incoherent-init-script-name tgtd

Not sure what to make of this warning.

 - final provides and requires are sane:

See below about chkconfig. Otherwise reasonable.

SHOULD Items:

 - Should build in mock. - OK
 - Should build on all supported archs - only tested x86_64
 - Should function as described. - did not test
 - Should have sane scriptlets. - ***

Missing the proper scriptlets for adding/removing scripts. See:

 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets

See the section on chkconfig Requires: there as well; as it is now, they're wrong.

 - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - N/A
 - Should have dist tag - OK
 - Should package latest version - OK

Other comments:

1. Versioning - this uses 0.1 for the package version. Upstream versioning is
done by date; the package should reflect that.

2. The init script - various issues

1) doesn't actually do anything sane if it fails to start
2) doesn't have a reload entry (if it's possible)
3) doesn't use the proper LSB return codes

3. Xen support - is not built. Should it be?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.