[Bug 462311] Review Request: raidutils - Utilities to manage Adaptec I2O compliant RAID controllers

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462311


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 #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-08 19:11:32 EDT ---
rpmlint says:
  raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 
   Argv
  raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 
   osdSwap2
  raidutils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 
   osdSwap4
I guess the executables are expected to provide these.  Since this isn't a
library you'd expect to be used by other problems, I don't see a problem here.

  raidutils.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libraidutil.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
This is a minor artifact of autoconf; you can fix it if you like with a quick
call to sed but it's probably not worth it.

I do wish the package had a somewhat less generic name, but it's been around
for over a decade and I don't see any point in trying to change it now.

I don't see any problems with the upstream being inactive; there's little or no
security exposure here, the hardware is no longer sold and the software works. 
At least, I'm taking your word that it does; I don't have the hardware.  

There's no reason for BuildRequires: gcc-c++; it's in the default buildroot. 
That's really a minor issue; you can take it out when you import the package.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   ac350f60b9635d952a7a5664effa59e418ada9ad3deba66d46e6e0a094966d65  
   raidutils-0.0.6.tar.bz2
* 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.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires (gcc-c++ unneeded).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   libraidutil.so.0()(64bit)
   raidutils = 0.0.6-2.fc11
   raidutils(x86-64) = 0.0.6-2.fc11
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libraidutil.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)

* shared libraries are installed; ldconfig called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* 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; just remove the errant gcc-c++ build dependency when you check in.

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.