Bug 450481
| Summary: | libibcommon package | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Doug Ledford <dledford> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ed Hill <ed> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, lemenkov, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ed:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | noarch | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband/f10/SRPMS/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-04-10 11:52:23 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 450470 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 450482 | ||
|
Description
Doug Ledford
2008-06-09 01:09:00 UTC
Here's a review (this time pasted into the correct bz entry!):
GOOD:
+ source matches upstream SHA1SUM:
1a2b36d0f309690ad660c9c1ff177f76c2484104 libibcommon-1.1.0.tar.gz
1a2b36d0f309690ad660c9c1ff177f76c2484104 libibcommon-1.1.0.tar.gz.UP
+ license is correct and correctly included in the main package
+ specfile looks clean and macros sane
+ proper use of ldconfig
+ *.la files are removed
+ proper use of -devel and -static
+ has %clean
+ builds in mock F8 x86_64
+ rpmlint reports just two ignore-able warnings:
libibcommon-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libibcommon-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
+ dir ownership looks good
+ permissions look good
NEEDSWORK:
- according to the review guidelines, the spec must have:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
or the equivalent at the start of %install section.
- Is the ExclusiveArch really necessary? Could it just be deleted?
I'm only asking because the review guidelines now include specific
rules concerning ExcludeArch and, if the ExclusiveArch is removed,
then I think the package will be fine wrt those guidelines. Maybe
a comment such as "is known to work on arches ... but has not been
tested on ..." would be enough?
Fixed the %install section Removed the ExclusiveArch. The software can be built anywhere, but obviously without a hardware driver, it's useless. The ExclusiveArch just mimicked what I knew to be working architectures as far as the kernel and the driver situation is concerned. OK, its APPROVED. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libibcommon Short Description: OpenFabrics Alliance InfiniBand management common library Owners: dledford Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. |