Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671079
Summary: Review Request: sblim-smis-hba - SBLIM SMIS HBA HDR Providers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vcrhonek@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/sblim-smis-hba/sblim-smis-hba.spec SRPM URL: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/sblim-smis-hba/sblim-smis-hba-1.0.0-1.fc14.... Description: SMI-S standards based HBA CMPI Providers.
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@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ovasik@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ovasik@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
--- Comment #1 from Ondrej Vasik ovasik@redhat.com 2011-01-20 09:17:52 EST --- First iteration of review: please, use %global instead of %define macros - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over...
you could drop BuildRoot, it is no longer necessary... comment about Patch4 but no Patch4 ... cleanup neeeded?
I see only AUTHORS COPYING and README - why you don't use %doc macro for them? It would give user a chance to install rpm without documentation.
.c/.h files in srpm have strange permissions 755. Have you considered -devel subpackage? Or it is not expected someone except IBM could use the API for development?
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@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
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
--- Comment #2 from Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com 2011-01-24 08:20:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #1)
First iteration of review: please, use %global instead of %define macros - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over...
Fixed.
you could drop BuildRoot, it is no longer necessary... comment about Patch4 but no Patch4 ... cleanup neeeded?
This comment is about Patch0 - fixed.
I see only AUTHORS COPYING and README - why you don't use %doc macro for them? It would give user a chance to install rpm without documentation.
Fixed.
.c/.h files in srpm have strange permissions 755. Have you considered -devel subpackage? Or it is not expected someone except IBM could use the API for development?
-devel subpackage is not necessary. No .c/.h files are shipped. In case that someone will need -devel subpackage, I'll create it.
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@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Ondrej Vasik ovasik@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.
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
Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com 2011-01-24 10:29:05 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sblim-smis-hba Short Description: SMI-S standards based HBA CMPI Providers Owners: vcrhonek Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC:
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
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-01-24 12:46:30 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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
Vitezslav Crhonek vcrhonek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-01-25 06:50:47
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org