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

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jan 24 14:28:08 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


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*

Just for record, sha256sums of other checked components:
$sha256sum sblim-smis-hba.spec 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
OK      dist tag is present.
OK      license field matches the actual license.
OK     license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
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
sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
sblim-smis-hba.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
sblim-smis-hba.src:48: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build
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.

More information about the package-review mailing list