[Bug 350181] Review Request: upslug2 - Upslug2 firmware update utility for the nslu2

[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: upslug2 - Upslug2 firmware update utility for the nslu2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=350181


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-11-03 15:34 EST -------
I always wanted to play with an nslu2....

You should probably use "svn export" instead of "svn co"to generate your tarball
so you don't have all of the .svn directory stuff.  It would also be good if
your instructions indicated how to check out the same revision as you have
packaged (svn export -r 39 ....).

Please see the "Snapshot Packages" section of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines for proper naming of
snapshot packages; you need to have the date there first; you can include
"svn39" or whatever else you want after that.

Generally there's no reason to include the name of the package in the summary. 
If you really want it there, though, I won't block this package because of it.

* source files match upstream (checked out and compared manually)
X package does not conform to snapshot package versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
? summary includes name of package.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged (trunk version 39).
* 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:
  upslug2-0.0-0.1.svn39.fc8.x86_64.rpm
   upslug2 = 0.0-0.1.svn39.fc8
  =
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libpcap.so.0.9()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I don't have the hardware to 
  test this against.  However, I'm happy to trust the test report in comment 1.
* 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 scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs 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.

So really there's just the issue of the package version and a couple of comments
about checking out the source holding this up, and those are pretty minor.  So
if you agree with me about those, consider this package APPROVED and go ahead
and check in.  If you don't then we can discuss it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.