[Bug 671079] Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers

[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=671079

Ondrej Vasik <ovasik at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #3 from Ondrej Vasik <ovasik at redhat.com> 2011-01-24 09:28:07 EST ---
OK      source files match upstream:

$sha256sum sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0.tar.bz*
0b285a3a3fa0efbb50386f5943adb59d8bb8891f923e57725303290d91aa486b 
sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0.tar.bz2
0b285a3a3fa0efbb50386f5943adb59d8bb8891f923e57725303290d91aa486b 
sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0.tar.bz2.orig

Just for record, sha256sums of other checked components:
$sha256sum sblim-smis-hba.spec sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm 
4939109c369557a85d76d87c4e4a0b83b3d74ebb0b5b24fa1232712681161f86 
sblim-smis-hba.spec
84eb31bb37af4f8f25c58770e253658d6920bf81bb0d734708d96dd986780531 
sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm


OK      package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK      specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK      dist tag is present.
OK      license field matches the actual license.
        EPL
OK     license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
        EPL
OK      latest version is being packaged.
OK      BuildRequires are proper.
OK      compiler flags are appropriate.
OK      package builds in mock (Rawhide/i686).
OK      debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD     rpmlint is silent.

$rpmlint sblim-smis-hba.spec sblim-smis-hba*.rpm
sblim-smis-hba.spec:48: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
LDFLAGS="-L${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/cmpi";
sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/cmpi/libcmpiLinux_ECTP_Provider.so
sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/cmpi/libcmpiSMIS_HBA_HDR_Provider.so
sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/cmpi/libcmpiLinux_Common.so
sblim-smis-hba.src:48: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
LDFLAGS="-L${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/cmpi";
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

We can ignore devel-file-in-non-devel-package - package is primarily for IBM
development and it makes no sense to have -devel subpackage in it. Second
warning could be ignored, it is intentional (we can't use paralel build because
of this as well) - some libraries are built at build time and used for the
build of the others.

OK     final provides and requires look sane.
N/A     %check is present and all tests pass.
N/A      shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with
proper scriptlets
OK      owns the directories it creates.
OK      doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK      no duplicates in %files.
OK      file permissions are appropriate.
OK      correct scriptlets present.
OK      code, not content.
OK      documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK      %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
N/A     headers in -devel
N/A     pkgconfig files in -devel
OK      no libtool .la droppings.
OK      not a GUI app.
OK      obsoletes and provides of the obsoleted package are valid

Package looks sane for me now, APPROVED.

-- 
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.