[Bug 180747] Review Request: powerman

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: powerman


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180747


jwilson at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com  2006-06-14 01:16 EST -------
Okay, as I think I mentioned in the comment that got lost with the bugzilla db
crash, I started work on a powerman pacakge of my own before thinking to see if
one was already pending review. The results of merging your spec and my spec
(which includes some stuff from Linux Networx, my former employer) looks pretty
good to me. First up, the issues I see with your spec:

1) New version out now (not your fault its taken so long for someone to review
though)

2) Release: tag is missing %{?dist}

3) Better to generally use %{name} and pretty much always %{version} tags
throughout a spec

4) parallel makes seem to fail intermittently on smp systems w/smp_mflags defined

5) No default powerman.conf installed, so when the user creates one, it won't be
owned by the powerman package

6) The initscript sets powermand to run by default, Fedora policy is to leave
everything off, let the user turn it on

7) Similar, on upgrades, let the user bounce the daemon unless there is a
condrestart option in the initscript

8) Looks like there's more %doc material that isn't getting installed

Hey, that's kinda a long list... But I'll attach my spec diff, and you can find
my spec (and srpm), which I believe addresses all of the above issues, here:

http://wilsonet.com/packages/powerman/

(It also adds a config file for the Linux Networx Icebox v4).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.