[Bug 483726] Review Request: smp_utils - Utilities for SAS management protocol (SMP)
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Mar 7 20:25:56 UTC 2009
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=483726
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2009-03-07 15:25:55 EDT ---
Builds fine and rpmlint is silent.
I won't ask you about the upstream status of the patch since you seem to be
upstream.
Please use a proper build root. At minimum it needs to reference %{release}.
Really, that's the only issue I see, and I'm happy to just let you fix it up
when you import the package.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
e386fa84e8ec86d252c0fa152cd3fce559d05c6e31b9309d7740bd5a7d88c04d
smp_utils-0.94.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
X build root is incorrect.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
smp_utils = 0.94-1.fc11
smp_utils(x86-64) = 0.94-1.fc11
=
(none)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
APPROVED
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list