Bug 773485

[dledford@schwoop x86_64]$ rpmlint ../../SPECS/ibutils.spec ../../SRPMS/ib* *
ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ibnlparse
ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2psl.pl
ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2slvl.pl
ibutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 exit.5
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 exit.5
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 exit.5
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
[dledford@schwoop x86_64]$

Created attachment 552252 [details]
Specfile for ibutils package

Looks good. I did notice that configure prints:

configure: WARNING: SWIG version == 1.1.5 is required.  You have 2.0.4. You should look at http://www.swig.org

Everything builds, but I wonder why upstream chose to put that warning in there?

Because upstream can be short sighted sometimes.  That > 1.1.5 is needed, yes.  That they chose to use == instead of >=, short sighted indeed.  It's not the first time I've run across this in the InfiniBand packages.  They work just fine in spite of the dire warning.

I will take this review.

+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
?: I have a question
N: not applicable

MUST:
[=] rpmlint output: I ran rpmlint on the installed packages, not on the binary RPMs, as that enables some more checks

ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ibnlparse
ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2psl.pl
ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2slvl.pl
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_cancel
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_create
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_cancel
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_detach
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 exit.5
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibsysapi.so.1.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibsysapi.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 linux-vdso.so.1
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 /lib64/libdl.so.2
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 /lib64/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 exit.5
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 linux-vdso.so.1
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 /lib64/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 exit.5
ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ibutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings.

So libibmscli.so should be linked with -lpthread, and there is unnecessary linkage.  The latter can be solved by adding -Wl,--as-needed to LDFLAGS.  Also, please ask upstream about eliminating calls to exit() in the shared libraries.
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[-] license file is included in %doc: it is, but in the main package.  It should be in the -libs package instead, since that can be installed without the main package.
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum is 82c7e95508f38caec4e8b8b5437598e0 for both
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[?] appropriate use of ExcludeArch: what is the reason for the ExclusiveArch?
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[+] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[+] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[+] header files in -devel
[-] static libraries in -static: the static libraries are in -libs
[+] .so in -devel
[+] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[N] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contain available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[?] package functions as described: don't know how to test
[+] sane scriptlets
[+] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts: yes, except for the 3 that rpmlint complained about

Doug: ping.

I'll take over from Doug after talking to him about this - he hasn't had time. I'll get this taken care of shortly.

New spec: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibutils.spec
New SRPM: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibutils-1.5.7-5.fc16.src.rpm

Built with mock for Fedora 17.  ibdiagnet works on SDR IB network.

Executive summary:
- The static library libibdmcom.a is in both -devel and -static
- Add a comment to the spec file explaining the dual license
- There is no desktop file for this package; should there be?
- COPYING should be in -libs instead of the main package, since -libs can be installed without the main package
- Is swig really needed at runtime?  (It's a Requires).  Just checking here; I don't know.
- Is autoconf really a BR?  It doesn't appear to be used.
- See the last item (about perl) in the MUST section below.
- fedora-review seems to be grumpy that you used Source: instead of Source0:; I don't care.
- I see a few instances of the string "1.5.7" in the spec file.  Should those be changed to %{version}?
- The undefined weak symbols and unnecessary linkage noted in comment 6 are still there.  You can get rid of the unnecessary linkage by doing this after %configure:

# Workaround libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries.
sed -e 's|^LTCC="gcc"|LTCC="gcc -Wl,--as-needed"|' \
    -e 's|^CC="g++"|CC="g++ -Wl,--as-needed"|' \
    -i ibdm/libtool ibis/libtool ibmgtsim/libtool

The undefined weak symbols can be eliminated by doing this before %configure:

sed -i "s/^libibmscli_la_LIBADD =/& -lpthread/" ibmgtsim/src/Makefile.in

Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
[!]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
     Note: ibutils-devel-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/libibdmcom.a
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[!]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
     Note: ibutils-devel-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/libibdmcom.a

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

Perl:
[!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Reguires:.
     Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
     $version)) missing?

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0 (ibutils-1.5.7.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ibutils-1.5.7-5.fc19.src.rpm
	  ibutils-devel-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm
	  ibutils-static-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm
	  ibutils-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm
	  ibutils-debuginfo-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm
	  ibutils-libs-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm
ibutils-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
ibutils-static.i686: W: no-documentation
ibutils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ibnlparse
ibutils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2psl.pl
ibutils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2slvl.pl
ibutils-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libibdm.so.1.1.1 exit
ibutils-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 exit
ibutils-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 exit
ibutils-libs.i686: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ibutils-libs ibutils ibutils-devel ibutils-static ibut 
ils-debuginfo
ibutils-libs.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libibdm.so.1.1.1 /lib/libdl.so.2
ibutils-libs.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libibdm.so.1.1.1 /lib/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libibdm.so.1.1.1 exit
ibutils-libs.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 /lib/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 exit
ibutils-libs.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_cancel
ibutils-libs.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_create
ibutils-libs.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_cancel
ibutils-libs.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_detach
ibutils-libs.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 exit
ibutils-libs.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libibsysapi.so.1.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6
ibutils-libs.i686: W: no-documentation
ibutils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ibnlparse
ibutils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2psl.pl
ibutils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2slvl.pl
ibutils-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
ibutils-static.i686: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
ibutils-devel-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    ibutils-libs(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    libibdm.so.1
    libibdmcom.so.1
    libibmscli.so.1
    libibsysapi.so.1

ibutils-static-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    ibutils-devel(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19

ibutils-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    /bin/bash
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/perl
    graphviz-tcl
    ibutils-libs(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    libc.so.6
    libdl.so.2
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libibdmcom.so.1
    libibumad.so.3
    libm.so.6
    libopensm.so.5
    libopensm.so.5(OPENSM_1.5)
    libosmcomp.so.3
    libosmcomp.so.3(OSMCOMP_2.3)
    libosmvendor.so.3
    libosmvendor.so.3(OSMVENDOR_2.0)
    libpthread.so.0
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    libtcl8.5.so
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    swig
    tcl
    tk

ibutils-debuginfo-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


ibutils-libs-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6
    libdl.so.2
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libibdmcom.so.1
    libibumad.so.3
    libm.so.6
    libopensm.so.5
    libopensm.so.5(OPENSM_1.5)
    libosmcomp.so.3
    libosmcomp.so.3(OSMCOMP_2.3)
    libosmvendor.so.3
    libosmvendor.so.3(OSMVENDOR_2.0)
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    libtcl8.5.so
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
ibutils-devel-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm:

    ibutils-devel = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    ibutils-devel(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19

ibutils-static-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm:

    ibutils-static = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    ibutils-static(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19

ibutils-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm:

    ibutils = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    ibutils(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19

ibutils-debuginfo-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm:

    ibutils-debuginfo = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    ibutils-debuginfo(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19

ibutils-libs-1.5.7-5.fc19.i686.rpm:

    ibutils-libs = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    ibutils-libs(x86-32) = 1.5.7-5.fc19
    libibdm.so.1
    libibdmcom.so.1
    libibis.so.1
    libibmscli.so.1
    libibsysapi.so.1



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/ibutils/ibutils-1.5.7.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8db2fcb20102c37e7037826c58b899092df034aac870d3d50a13263746f17f18
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8db2fcb20102c37e7037826c58b899092df034aac870d3d50a13263746f17f18


Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 773485 -m fedora-rawhide-i386

(In reply to comment #11)
> Executive summary:
> - The static library libibdmcom.a is in both -devel and -static

Oops. Just missed deleting it :)

> - Add a comment to the spec file explaining the dual license

Done

> - There is no desktop file for this package; should there be?

Not sure if that makes much sense here, but I can add one if required.

> - COPYING should be in -libs instead of the main package, since -libs can be
> installed without the main package

Done.

> - Is swig really needed at runtime?  (It's a Requires).  Just checking here;
> I don't know.

I'm not sure either. I'll drop it for now and see if it still works. (the good part is ibmgtsim doesn't require IB hardware)

> - Is autoconf really a BR?  It doesn't appear to be used.

Dropped.

> - See the last item (about perl) in the MUST section below.

Is that really necessary? I can see it being for perl modules, but we're just packaging some perl scripts here.

> - fedora-review seems to be grumpy that you used Source: instead of
> Source0:; I don't care.

Heh, I'll make our automated overlords happy :)

> - I see a few instances of the string "1.5.7" in the spec file.  Should
> those be changed to %{version}?

The only places that I see that is in %files - I think that adding macros there 
will save very little maintenance effort and just obfuscate the spec.

> - The undefined weak symbols and unnecessary linkage noted in comment 6 are
> still there.  You can get rid of the unnecessary linkage by doing this after
> %configure:
> 
> # Workaround libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries.
> sed -e 's|^LTCC="gcc"|LTCC="gcc -Wl,--as-needed"|' \
>     -e 's|^CC="g++"|CC="g++ -Wl,--as-needed"|' \
>     -i ibdm/libtool ibis/libtool ibmgtsim/libtool

Done.
> 
> The undefined weak symbols can be eliminated by doing this before %configure:
> 
> sed -i "s/^libibmscli_la_LIBADD =/& -lpthread/" ibmgtsim/src/Makefile.in

Done.

New spec: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibutils.spec
New SRPM: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibutils-1.5.7-6.fc19.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > - There is no desktop file for this package; should there be?
> 
> Not sure if that makes much sense here, but I can add one if required.

I'm just going off of the review guidelines for packages that contain a GUI.  I'm not sure it makes much sense either, frankly, so don't worry about this unless somebody else yells.

> > - See the last item (about perl) in the MUST section below.
> 
> Is that really necessary? I can see it being for perl modules, but we're
> just packaging some perl scripts here.

Yes, you're right.  We'll call this one a false alarm.

> > - I see a few instances of the string "1.5.7" in the spec file.  Should
> > those be changed to %{version}?
> 
> The only places that I see that is in %files - I think that adding macros
> there 
> will save very little maintenance effort and just obfuscate the spec.

No, I meant the two instances in %install:

chmod -x %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ibdm1.5.7/ibnl/*
chrpath -d %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*/libib{dm,is}.so.1.5.7

Fix those before import if you think they need to be fixed.  Everything else looks good, so this package is APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ibutils
Short Description: Infiniband diagnostic utilities
Owners: jstanley dledford
Branches:  f17 f18
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Jon, what is going on with this package?  It has never been built, as far as I can tell, and the bug is still hanging around, open.

Did I miss actually building it? D'oh! Put on my to-do list for FUDCon this weekend :)

Jon, this package STILL hasn't been built.  I'm frankly alarmed at the lack of attention this package is receiving before it has even been built.

And I'm sufficiently alarmed by the lack of response to THAT comment that I'm invoking the unresponsive maintainer process:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_policy

Jon, please respond.

Not unresponsive.

I was hoping to have time to get to this in the last week, but it didn't happen. I'll make some time tomorrow.

ibutils-1.5.7-7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibutils-1.5.7-7.fc17

ibutils-1.5.7-7.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ibutils-1.5.7-7.fc18

Built for rawhide, f17, f18.

ibutils-1.5.7-7.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

Never moved on to stable.  I tried the rpms from the updates-testing repo for F17.

Working on broad install of F18, but I'm pretty sure this is good to go.

Ping? Is it still a valid bug? It has been here about 4 years. Why it never be closed as VERIFIED?

As it is a stale bug and ibutils had been updated to latest ibutils-1.5.7-21, I'm closing it.