Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ajackson@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/libpciaccess/libpciaccess.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/libpciaccess/libpciaccess-0.8-0.20070524.s... Description: libpciaccess is an OS-independent abstraction layer for accessing PCI devices. The X server will eventually depend on this, as well as several other projects if I have my way.
No upstream release tarball anywhere yet, hence the git snapshot in the SRPM.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
belegdol@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |belegdol@gmail.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
belegdol@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From belegdol@gmail.com 2007-05-30 06:36 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint is not silent on the devel package. Complains about no documentation, but this can be ignored. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package name - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must matches the actual license - MIT - MUST: License is included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file is written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. - MUST: Package builds and compiles on fc6/i386 - MUST: Did not find compile failures - MUST: Buildrequires are fine - MUST: Locale does not apply - MUST: ldconfig is used properly - MUST: Non-relocatable - MUST: No dirs created - MUST: No duplicates in %files - MUST: Correct permissions - MUST: %clean section present - MUST: Consistent use of macros - MUST: Package contains code - MUST: No large documentation - MUST: No %doc runtime dependency - MUST: Header files are in a -devel package. - MUST: No static libs - MUST: pkgconfig requires correct - MUST: .so file in -devel - MUST: Correct NVR requires for devel - MUST: No libtool archives - MUST: Not a GUI app - MUST: No overlapping ownership - MUST: Correct buildroot cleanup - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: License is present as a separate file - SHOULD: Package builds in mock (fc6/i386) - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane - SHOULD: NVR dependencies correct - SHOULD: pkgconfig files are in -devel
Things to correct: - please change package release to 0.1.%{gitdate}git%{?dist}, as per [1] - please read [2] to check how to state the source url precisely - a minot thing: please align -devel requires with the lines above them
Other than that, the package looks fine to me.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-cfd71146dbb6f0... [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL?highlight=%28sourceurl%29#...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
------- Additional Comments From belegdol@gmail.com 2007-05-30 09:18 EST ------- Ah, one more thing. Please add AUTHORS, ChangeLog, NEWS and README to %doc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
------- Additional Comments From ajackson@redhat.com 2007-05-30 23:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2)
Ah, one more thing. Please add AUTHORS, ChangeLog, NEWS and README to %doc.
NEWS and README are empty. That seems unnecessary. I'll happily add them once they have content though.
New URLs: http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/libpciaccess/libpciaccess.spec http://people.redhat.com/ajackson/libpciaccess/libpciaccess-0.8-0.1.20070530...
I added the git checkout instructions as a script since they're ugly to emit inline. The only tricky part is the bit where it removes .git/ before compressing, since that's just wasteful to include in srpm.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
belegdol@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From belegdol@gmail.com 2007-05-31 04:45 EST ------- I am getting 404 error on the srpm. Otherwise, spec looks fine to me, just don't forget to update the %changelog section. It is not a blocker, so
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
ajackson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From ajackson@redhat.com 2007-06-05 09:47 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libpciaccess Short Description: PCI access library Owners: ajackson@redhat.com Branches: F-7 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2007-06-05 11:14 EST ------- cvs done
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2007-06-14 17:12 EST ------- libpciaccess-0.8-0.1.20070530git.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262
updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA Fixed In Version| |0.8-0.1.20070530git.fc7
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org