Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pknirsch/RHEL-5/freeipmi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pknirsch/RHEL-5/freeipmi-0.5.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: The FreeIPMI project provides "Remote-Console" (out-of-band) and "System Management Software" (in-band) based on Intelligent Platform Management Interface specification. This package already passed the Fedora Package Review and is included in Fedora 8 as well as Fedora Development.
This review and inclusion request is based on bug #183441
* rpmlint: OK * Package Naming Guidelines: OK * The spec file name: OK * The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines: OK * approved license: OK * The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license: OK * text of the license(s) must be included in %doc: OK * The spec file must be written in American English: OK * The spec file for the package MUST be legible: OK * The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL: OK * The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK * `ExcludeArch`: OK, done with ExclusiveArch * All build dependencies must be listed in `BuildRequires`: OK * The spec file MUST handle locales properly: DOESN'T APPLY * call ldconfig: OK * relocatable: NO * A package must own all directories that it creates: OK * A package must not contain any duplicate files in the `%files` listing: OK * Permissions on files must be set properly: OK * Each package must have a %clean section: OK * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros macros section of Packaging Guidelines: OK * The package must contain code, or permissable content: OK * Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage: OK, docs are small * %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application: OK * Header files must be in a -devel package: OK * Static libraries must be in a -static package: OK, no statics * Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig': OK, doesn't apply * If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package: OK * devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: OK * Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec: OK * Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file: OK, doesn't apply * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages: OK * At the beginning of `%install`, each package MUST run `rm -rf %{buildroot}`: OK * All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8: OK * If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it: DOESN'T APPLY * The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available: NOT AVAILABLE * The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: OK * If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity: OK * Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: OK * The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files: DOESN'T APPLY * file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin: DOESN'T APPLY TODO: description of devel package: static libs are no longer included
Moving to Tracker: RHEL packages accepted, pending implementation
Fixed description for devel packages on latest build: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pknirsch/RHEL-5/freeipmi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pknirsch/RHEL-5/freeipmi-0.5.1-2.src.rpm Read ya, Phil
Hi, the RHEL5.2 release notes will be dropped to translation on April 15, 2008, at which point no further additions or revisions will be entertained. a mockup of the RHEL5.2 release notes can be viewed at the following link: http://intranet.corp.redhat.com/ic/intranet/RHEL5u2relnotesmockup.html please use the aforementioned link to verify if your bugzilla is already in the release notes (if it needs to be). each item in the release notes contains a link to its original bug; as such, you can search through the release notes by bug number. Cheers, Don