Bug 226447 - Merge Review: sysfsutils
Summary: Merge Review: sysfsutils
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Todd Zullinger
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
Blocks: F9MergeReviewTarget
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 21:03 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2008-08-02 23:40 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-02-25 22:25:58 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tmz: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
patch to fix minor issues for merge review (2.81 KB, patch)
2008-01-11 19:16 UTC, Todd Zullinger
no flags Details | Diff

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 21:03:50 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: sysfsutils

Initial Owner: nhorman@redhat.com

Comment 2 Jarod Wilson 2007-02-04 17:50:15 UTC
Should actually be assigned to nobody@fedoraproject.org until someone picks it up for review, only needs 
to be assigned over to me once a reviewer says there's something that needs my attention.

Comment 3 Todd Zullinger 2008-01-11 19:15:16 UTC
Jarod, here's a review.  Things look mostly sane.  The few minor issues are
noted below.  I'll attach a patch that makes these changes.  Feel free to use
some or all of it, with or without attribution. ;)

* source files match upstream:

b3cb316c652b09ec66f93f4ea98a93a7a1001678  sysfsutils-2.1.0.tar.gz

* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

X license field matches the actual license.
    The main package license should be GPLv2
    (cmd/systool.c specifies v2 and has no "or any later version clause")

    The libsysfs subpackage should be LGPLv2+

* license is open source-compatible.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none are needed).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (fedora-devel-x86_64,).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent. (not quite, but these warnings should be okay to ignore):

    sysfsutils.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-2 2.1.0-1.fc9
    libsysfs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

* final provides and requires are sane
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.

X scriptlets are properly run for libs
    ldconfig needs to be run for the libsysfs subpackage

* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

Comment 4 Todd Zullinger 2008-01-11 19:16:29 UTC
Created attachment 291411 [details]
patch to fix minor issues for merge review

Comment 5 Jarod Wilson 2008-02-25 22:25:58 UTC
D'oh. This got lost in the shuffle... Just made these changes (more or less) to
rawhide, building now.

Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2008-02-26 23:53:57 UTC
Todd: Did you want to mark this with fedora-review + ? 

Jarod: You shouldn't usually close until it's been approved... ;) 

Comment 7 Todd Zullinger 2008-02-27 00:42:20 UTC
Yep, I wanted to look back over it before I added the fedora-review +, since it
was a month ago that I did the review and my memory needs frequent refreshing. 
It looks like everything is good.  Thanks Jarod (and Kevin for poking :).

Comment 8 Jarod Wilson 2008-02-27 04:00:33 UTC
Whoops, sorry, my mistake... Got close-happy plowing through bugs yesterday... :)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.