Bug 451095

Providing a specfile separately would make reviewer's life easier. Partial
specfile review below.

> License: GPL/BSD

Invalid License tag. Should be:
License: GPLv2 or BSD

> BuildRequires: libibverbs-devel >= 1.1, autoconf, libtool

libtool requires autoconf

> ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64 ia64 ppc ppc64

Do you know for certain it doesn't work on sparc/sparc64?

> Obsoletes: %{name}-devel

Why? There's no libcxgb3-devel in Fedora.

> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> %makeinstall

Don't use %makeinstall, use %{__make} install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
(and make sure the Makefile supports DESTDIR for install target).

> install -m 644 -D %{SOURCE1}
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_sysconfdir}/modprobe.d/libcxgb3.conf

Use install -p to preserve source timestamps.

(In reply to comment #1)
> Providing a specfile separately would make reviewer's life easier. Partial
> specfile review below.

specfile now available in the SRPM directory.

> > License: GPL/BSD
> 
> Invalid License tag. Should be:
> License: GPLv2 or BSD

Fixed

> > BuildRequires: libibverbs-devel >= 1.1, autoconf, libtool
> 
> libtool requires autoconf

Fixed

> > ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64 ia64 ppc ppc64
> 
> Do you know for certain it doesn't work on sparc/sparc64?

No, but I also don't know that it *does* work on sparc/sparc64, and this isn't
your run of the mill user space package, it is a hardware driver in user space.
 Regardless though, I removed the ExclusiveArch.

> > Obsoletes: %{name}-devel
> 
> Why? There's no libcxgb3-devel in Fedora.

Because the upstream people distribute a package called libcxgb3-devel that's
really nothing but a .a static lib, and we put that in the -static file.  This
prevents conflicts when upgrading from the libcxgb3 included as part of the
OFED-1.3.tar.gz package by upstream to this package.

> > %install
> > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > %makeinstall
> 
> Don't use %makeinstall, use %{__make} install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
> (and make sure the Makefile supports DESTDIR for install target).

Fixed.

> > install -m 644 -D %{SOURCE1}
> ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_sysconfdir}/modprobe.d/libcxgb3.conf
> 
> Use install -p to preserve source timestamps.

Fixed.

I updated over the top of the previous package (aka, I built with the same
n-v-r, not a bumped one) so to get the new srpm you might have to force a
refresh if you are behind a proxy cache.  Otherwise, the specfile is now
available and includes the fixes listed.

Here's a quick review:

GOOD:
+ source matches upstream SHA1SUM:
    4aa38c77c42ebbd07d724f2df6cf2e108af03c8d  libcxgb3-1.2.1.tar.gz
    4aa38c77c42ebbd07d724f2df6cf2e108af03c8d  libcxgb3-1.2.1.tar.gz.UP
+ license is correct and correctly included in the main package
+ specfile looks clean and macros sane
+ *.la files are removed
+ builds in mock F8 x86_64
+ rpmlint reports:
    libcxgb3.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-devel
    libcxgb3.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modprobe.d/libcxgb3.conf
    libcxgb3.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/cxgb3.driver
    libcxgb3.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libcxgb3-devel
    libcxgb3-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
+ dir ownership looks good
+ permissions look good


I think the "Obsoletes: %{name}-devel" is harmless.  If, as Doug points 
out, it helps users upgrade from upstream/3rd-party RPMs then I'd like 
to allow it.

I don't see any blockers here so its APPROVED.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: libcxgb3
Short Description: Userspace driver for Chelsio iWARP hardware
Owners: dledford
Branches: F-8 F-9
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

What's the status of this ticket? Should we close it?

Yes, I think so.  It's in CVS now.