+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #494546 +++ +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #489929 +++ Spec URL: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libhbaapi.spec SRPM URL: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libHBAAPI-2.2-2.fc10.src.rpm Description: Package contains HBA API library, used as a wrapper for other vendor specific libraries. Package will be used as a connector between FCoE Utilities and libhalinux. --- Additional comment from dan on 2009-03-30 10:13:18 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below: BAD source files match upstream: BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel OK pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - full URLs for Sources are missing - the %name tag should be all in lowercase to be consistent with archive name (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines) - it's preferred to have the Requires for the devel sub-package on separate lines - rpmlint complains a bit: libHBAAPI-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI.src: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA => SNIA license was recently added to the list of good licenses and is not yet known to rpmlint libHBAAPI.src: E: invalid-spec-name => package name and spec filename are not in sync libHBAAPI-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation => can be ignored - you can apply the "includes" patch supplied by the hbaapi_build archive instead of using an own copy --- Additional comment from jzeleny on 2009-03-31 05:42:35 EDT --- Updated SPEC: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libhbaapi.spec Updated SRPM: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libhbaapi-2.2-3.fc10.src.rpm --- Additional comment from dan on 2009-03-31 06:34:22 EDT --- - the hbaapi_build_2.2.tar.gz tarball differs between this package and upstream URL (length 674018 vs. 672470) - the %description for the main package could be more verbose --- Additional comment from dan on 2009-03-31 06:37:04 EDT --- link to the thread about the SNIA license on fedora-legal mailing list - https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-February/msg00033.html --- Additional comment from jzeleny on 2009-04-01 09:09:11 EDT --- Updated SPEC: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libhbaapi.spec Updated SRPM: http://jzeleny.fedorapeople.org/packages/libhbaapi/libhbaapi-2.2-4.fc10.src.rpm I added one line to the description. It's not much, but hopefully it's enough for now. --- Additional comment from dan on 2009-04-01 10:15:39 EDT --- All issues are fixed, this package is APPROVED. --- Additional comment from jzeleny on 2009-04-02 03:40:24 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libhbaapi Short Description: Package contains HBA API library. It will be used as a connector between FCoE Utilities and libhbalinux. Owners: jzeleny Branches: InitialCC: --- Additional comment from kevin on 2009-04-03 16:41:57 EDT --- I used "SNIA HBAAPI library" as the Short Description as that seems more correct. cvs done.
Fedora review: bug 489929 Package has been built for F11 in version 2.2-4: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=97056
Ron, could you confirm who's driving these fcoe requests? This bug, bug #494550 and bug #494555.
Chris, These are driven by Intel.
*** Bug 438481 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
~~ Attention - RHEL 5.4 Beta Released! ~~ RHEL 5.4 Beta has been released! There should be a fix present in the Beta release that addresses this particular request. Please test and report back results here, at your earliest convenience. RHEL 5.4 General Availability release is just around the corner! If you encounter any issues while testing Beta, please describe the issues you have encountered and set the bug into NEED_INFO. If you encounter new issues, please clone this bug to open a new issue and request it be reviewed for inclusion in RHEL 5.4 or a later update, if it is not of urgent severity. Please do not flip the bug status to VERIFIED. Only post your verification results, and if available, update Verified field with the appropriate value. Questions can be posted to this bug or your customer or partner representative.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2009-1314.html