Bug 252456 - Review Request: silo - The SILO boot loader for SPARCs
Summary: Review Request: silo - The SILO boot loader for SPARCs
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jima
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 253043
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-08-16 04:27 UTC by Dennis Gilmore
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:12 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-10-09 14:38:47 UTC
Type: ---
jima: fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dennis Gilmore 2007-08-16 04:27:27 UTC
Spec URL: http://ausil.us/packages/silo.spec
SRPM URL: http://ausil.us/packages/silo-1.4.13-3.al3.src.rpm
The silo package installs the SILO (Sparc Improved LOader) boot
loader, which you'll need to boot the Linux kernel on a SPARC.  SILO
installs onto your system's boot block and can be configured to boot
Linux, Solaris and SunOS.

Comment 1 manuel wolfshant 2007-08-16 09:33:57 UTC
There are a few small problems with the spec
- I'd say that
should use %{_mandir} (for instance %{_mandir}/man?/*), /usr/sbin/silocheck
should be replaced with %{_sbindir}/silocheck, /usr/bin/stuff with
%{_bindir}/stuff ... (Packaging/Guidelines#macros)
- According to Packaging/Guidelines#parallelmake SMP flags should be used if
- mock build fails with 
No Package Found for elftoaout

Cannot find build req  elftoaout. Exiting.
I assume this comes from testing being done on x86 ?

Comment 2 Dennis Gilmore 2007-08-16 18:27:45 UTC
Teach me for submitting a package before i go to bed.  elftoaout needs adding 
also  i submitted a review for it.  Fixed the issues and built in mock.  If 
you want to build on sparc i can give you access to a machine.  

SPEC: http://ausil.us/packages/silo.spec
SRPM: http://ausil.us/packages/silo-1.4.13-4.fc8.src.rpm

Comment 3 Dennis Gilmore 2007-08-24 17:56:13 UTC
SRPM: http://ausil.us/packages/silo-1.4.13-5.fc8.src.rpm
SPEC: http://ausil.us/packages/silo.spec

use smp flags for building.

Comment 4 Jima 2007-09-25 16:51:07 UTC
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Spec provides updated License tag
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7039aabf3c1b3858ae8d0ccdde21343e  silo-1.4.13.tar.bz2
7039aabf3c1b3858ae8d0ccdde21343e  silo-1.4.13.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
See below (#1) - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below (#2) - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

silo = 1.4.13-5.fc8

rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1


OK - Should build in mock.
See below (#3) - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
0 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

#1: %defattr(-,root,root) -> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

#2: $ rpmlint silo-1.4.13-5.fc8.sparc.rpm
silo.sparc: E: statically-linked-binary /boot/ieee32.b

Is this a blocker?  Considering it appears to be a first-stage bootloader, I'm
quite hesitant to say so.

#3: Ha, ha, ha.  I think we can safely ignore this for an arch-specific bootloader.

Fix #1, and provide some feedback on #2 and #3 (Spot? Peter?), and I think we're

Also, this bug depends on BZ#253043, which is (I believe) approved and built. 
Care to close that? :-)

Comment 5 Dennis Gilmore 2007-09-28 21:49:38 UTC
SRPM: http://ausil.us/packages/silo-1.4.13-6.fc8.src.rpm
SPEC: http://ausil.us/packages/silo.spec

#2 i dont think is a problem. it will get called very early in the boot 
process #3  it builds on sparc :) which is all supported archs there is no 
need to build silo as a sparc64 binary.

Comment 6 Jima 2007-09-29 14:27:17 UTC
#1: clearly addressed.

#2: shouldn't be an issue.

#3: do we need to file ExclusiveArch bugs?  Whatever, not exactly a blocker.

I'm going to deem silo APPROVED.

Comment 7 Dennis Gilmore 2007-10-05 02:48:50 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: silo
Short Description: The SILO boot loader for SPARCs
Owners: ausil spot pjones
Branches: devel 
InitialCC: jima
Cvsextras Commits: yes

Comment 8 Dennis Gilmore 2007-10-05 02:57:56 UTC
cvs done

Comment 9 Jima 2007-10-09 14:38:47 UTC
Finally getting around to addressing #3 (since you and I keep forgetting to file
ExclusiveArch bugs): I looked at aboot, grub, and yaboot, and found none of them
have bugs filed.  I ran it by my sponsor (and the author of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures), Spot, and he agreed that there was
no point in filing EA bugs.  I think we can consider our bases covered.

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