[Bug 368401] Review Request: freeipmi - Free IPMI userland implementation

[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: freeipmi - Free IPMI userland implementation


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368401


karsten at redhat.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com  2007-11-07 09:07 EST -------
Ok, here's the list of what I've checked, although this list isn't required by 
the ReviewGuidelines, it just has to be followed (which I did):
- rpmlint: freeipmi.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.6-1.fc7 
0.4.6-1
  I think this one can be neglected, rpmlint should ignore dist tags
- package follows package nameing guidelines
- spec file matches base package name
- Licenses of all files have been checked
- no pre-built binaries included
- package follows FHS
- changelog looks sane
- spec file tags are ok
- buildroot is ok
- buildroot cleaned before install, spec hat a %clean section
- Buildrequirements are ok, no regressions between builds in mock and in a 
full environment, configure output has been checked
- Requires post/preun have been added for programs used in scriptlets
- static libraries have been disabled
- check-rpaths doesn't complain
- config files are noreplace
- initscripts aren't config files
- file permissions look sane
- %makeinstall isn't used
- tarball sha1sum matches upstream's tarball
- smp flags are used for build
- package owns oll directories it creates or requires other packages who own 
them
- package build in mock and in koji, spec file has an ExclusiveArch because of
  glibc not supporting some required functions on s390x, sparc, ppc* with a 
comment pointing at a bugzilla for the reasons
- freeipmi packages don't have any localizes stuff
- packages run ldconfig in their scriptlets
- no duplicate files in the files sections
- header files are in a -devel subpackage
- packages don't have any .la or pkgconfig files

Btw: it would have been faster if you actually would have taken a quick look 
at the spec file instead of simply rejecting it. Be assured that I didn't 
simply waive it just because Phil happens to sit at the other side of my desk. 
He really had to fix quite a few issues.

My fedora-review+ still stands and if you have any issues with that, take it 
to FESCO instead of mistrusting my review of this package

-- 
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.