Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/smp_utils.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/smp_utils-0.94-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This is a package of utilities. Each utility sends a Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) Management Protocol (SMP) request to a SMP target. If the request fails then the error is decoded. If the request succeeds then the response is either decoded, printed out in hexadecimal or output in binary. This package supports multiple interfaces since SMP passthroughs are not mature. This package supports the linux 2.4 and 2.6 series and should be easy to port to other operating systems.
Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. I won't ask you about the upstream status of the patch since you seem to be upstream. Please use a proper build root. At minimum it needs to reference %{release}. Really, that's the only issue I see, and I'm happy to just let you fix it up when you import the package. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: e386fa84e8ec86d252c0fa152cd3fce559d05c6e31b9309d7740bd5a7d88c04d smp_utils-0.94.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. X build root is incorrect. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: smp_utils = 0.94-1.fc11 smp_utils(x86-64) = 0.94-1.fc11 = (none) * 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. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one.
I neglected to mention that I was not able to test this at all since I have no SAS hardware handy. I'm sure other prospective reviewers would have the same issue.
Just wondering: any idea why a ppc64 package is not built in koji/EL4 ? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1229077 I tried to test the EL4/i386 package, but none of the tested programs worked for me. However, as I am using a very very non standard kernel on the only box equipped with SAS, this is not an indication of failure of the program, could be just an incompatibility with my kernel. Or my lack of understanding the correct usage... [root@router bin]# ./smp_phy_test /dev/sda smp_initiator_open: failed to open /dev/sda [root@router bin]# hdparm -I /dev/sda /dev/sda: ATA device, with non-removable media Model Number: HITACHI HDS7280SASUN82G 0610LZMV1N Serial Number: PFDB32S7RZMV1N Firmware Revision: PF2OA66A It is the standard disk supplied with Sun's X2100 and as far as I know it is SAS.
(In reply to comment #1) > Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. > > I won't ask you about the upstream status of the patch since you seem to be > upstream. No, I am only providing part of my web space to Douglas Gilbert who is the upstream. But the patch was already accepted by him. > Please use a proper build root. At minimum it needs to reference %{release}. Oh, that's my omission when I was adapting the upstream spec file. > Really, that's the only issue I see, and I'm happy to just let you fix it up > when you import the package. Yes, I will update it before importing. > The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package > reviews recently, please consider doing one. Well, I have fulfilled my quota for this week with 5 finished reviews :-) Thanks for the review.
(In reply to comment #3) > Just wondering: any idea why a ppc64 package is not built in koji/EL4 ? > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1229077 ppc64 variant of EL (both 4 and 5) wasn't released, ppc machines defaults to 32-bit userspace > I tried to test the EL4/i386 package, but none of the tested programs worked > for me. However, as I am using a very very non standard kernel on the only box > equipped with SAS, this is not an indication of failure of the program, could > be just an incompatibility with my kernel. Or my lack of understanding the > correct usage... I can only suggest http://sg.danny.cz/sg/smp_utils.html for more information.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: smp_utils Short Description: Utilities for SAS management protocol (SMP) Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-4 EL-5
cvs done.
imported and built
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: smp_utils New Branches: epel7 Owners: sharkcz
Branch exists.