Bug 669407

Description still seems to refer to the old package name.

Wasn't ledtcl just reviewed and accepted?  Why is it being renamed already?

I guess it was because of the "already existing dead project" with ledctl name on sourceforge.
Personally, I think we could keep the package as ledctl (with %setup -n) ... but if Jirka tends to rename the package, I'm not against it.

Few notes before real rereview:
Please remove the note about missing upstream URL, URL is now provided.

You moved ledctl from %_bindir to %_sbindir - is that intentional?... it may
break some scripts if someone already started with the %_bindir (I know, it is
VERY low probability, but possibly some wrapper with deprecation warning could
be considered).

(In reply to comment #2)
> I guess it was because of the "already existing dead project" with ledctl name
> on sourceforge.
> Personally, I think we could keep the package as ledctl (with %setup -n) ...
> but if Jirka tends to rename the package, I'm not against it.
> 

Actually I can live with ledctl using ledmon as source, but I would prefer to rename it (I was just too fast and upstream found out that ledctl is taken :( )

> Few notes before real rereview:
> Please remove the note about missing upstream URL, URL is now provided.
> 

- will do

> You moved ledctl from %_bindir to %_sbindir - is that intentional?... 
- yes, it's an upstream change
> it may
> break some scripts if someone already started with the %_bindir (I know, it is
> VERY low probability, but possibly some wrapper with deprecation warning could
> be considered).
- I built it only for rawhide so far, so I think we're safe...

So the question is: Rename or not? Opinions?

(In reply to comment #1)
> Description still seems to refer to the old package name.

- the package contains 2 applications ledctl and ledmon. The description is referring to the application not to the package - which should be probably made more clear..

(In reply to comment #2)
> Few notes before real rereview:
> Please remove the note about missing upstream URL, URL is now provided.
> 
- fixed

> You moved ledctl from %_bindir to %_sbindir - is that intentional?
- yes, it's an upstream change
> ... it may
> break some scripts if someone already started with the %_bindir (I know, it is
> VERY low probability, but possibly some wrapper with deprecation warning could
> be considered).

- uploaded fixed spec and srpm

- bumped release, so the fix Obsoletes/Provides

Spec URL: http://jmoskovc.fedorapeople.org/ledmon.spec
SRPM URL: http://jmoskovc.fedorapeople.org/ledmon-0.1-2.fc14.src.rpm

formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:

OK      source files match upstream:

sha256sum ledmon-0.1.tar.gz ledmon-0.1.tar.gz.orig 
12d8c843a539d6b61be0d4f5c6394d7a8bc89cda60512ee6f1316dca9676736d  ledmon-0.1.tar.gz
12d8c843a539d6b61be0d4f5c6394d7a8bc89cda60512ee6f1316dca9676736d  ledmon-0.1.tar.gz.orig

Just for record, sha256sums of other checked components:
sha256sum ledmon.spec ledmon-0.1-2.fc14.src.rpm     
8bfbf9318e87857751ad05b00e89fec52e1a5d0627c8da91803b3d393641879c  ledmon.spec
627302904840afa2269db1b2bc13e7f3064cc2f1ed78baa740da59ddbff3761b  ledmon-0.1-2.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.
        GPLv2+
OK     license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
        GPLv2+
OK      latest version is being packaged.
OK     BuildRequires are proper.

        pod2man required for manpage generating, so BuildRequires: perl could
be added for safety, however - perl is part of dependency tree of the basic
buildtree so not required.

OK   compiler flags are appropriate.
OK      package builds in mock (Rawhide/i686).
OK      debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD     rpmlint is silent.

$ rpmlint ledmon-0.1-2*.rpm ledmon.spec               
ledmon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ledctl -> ledger, ledge, Leda
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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.
OK      headers in -devel
OK      pkgconfig files in -devel
OK      no libtool .la droppings.
OK      not a GUI app.
OK      obsoletes and provides of the obsoleted package are valid

Maybe just one comment ledctl.conf manpage is at the moment useless (utilities don't use conf files at the moment) and may be a bit confusing. I think it would be safer to not ship it. 

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ledmon
Short Description: Enclosure LED Utilities
Owners: jmoskovc
Branches: f14 el6

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ledmon
Short Description: Enclosure LED Utilities
Owners: jmoskovc
Branches: f14

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Packages pushed to rawhide and F14 -> closing.