[Bug 421871] Review Request: libvirt-cim - A CIM provider for libvirt

[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: libvirt-cim - A CIM provider for libvirt


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=421871


matt_domsch at dell.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |NEEDINFO
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-,
                   |                            |needinfo?(danms at us.ibm.com)




------- Additional Comments From matt_domsch at dell.com  2008-01-06 00:42 EST -------
Release: what's extra_release there for?

BuildRoot: value acceptable, but two better choices are available.

Source: misssing full URL to the file.

Why explicit Requires for libxml2 and libvirt versions?  README lists
libvirt-0.2.3, while spec Requires libvirt >= 0.3.2.  typo? somewhere?

%pre needs a comment explaining what you're trying to do.
 It looks like the provider-register call in %pre is trying to
 unregister (e.g. -d is delete).  It took me a while to figure it out,
 because you are invoking scripts that are part of its own (not yet
 installed) package (which fails on first install, so you hit the
 ||true clause).

%post: don't automatically restart the service, use cond-restart.  You
 don't want it started on initial install from kickstart, for example.

$ rpmlint *.rpm
libvirt-cim.src: W: strange-permission libvirt-cim.spec 0600
otherwise file permissions look ok, no other lint warnings.


rpaths used, which need to be removed.  Drop files in
/etc/ld.so.conf.d/ adding /usr/lib*/cmpi/.

Remove *.so files.


Review criteria:
rpmlint attached, trivial spec permission fix at checkin time OK
package name OK
spec file name OK
with changes above, should meet packaging guidelines FIX+RECHECK
license LGPLv2.1+ OK
license field matches OK
license included in %doc OK
spec is English OK
spec mostly legible, modulo comments above. OK
can't presently judge source matches upstream, until formal upstream
  tarball is released.   FIX+RECHECK
package compiles on at least x86_64 F9(rawhide) in mock. OK
spec doesn't use locales OK
ldconfig called appropriately OK
package not relocatable OK 
package owns its directories OK
no duplicate files OK
defaddr line present, permissions sane OK
%clean OK
macros OK
contains code OK
no large docs
no header files OK
no static libs OK
no pkgconfig files OK
.so files present but not in a -devel package, delete
  them. FIX+RECHECK
no .la files OK
no GUI files OK
directory ownership OK
%install cleans first OK
all filesname UTF-8 OK

license included OK
translated summary & description, not present. SHOULD, but OK
package builds in mock on x86_64. OK
package not tested.
scriptlets sane, if commented.  FIX+RECHECK
no subpackages OK
no .pc files OK
no file deps OK


Please fix and repost.

-- 
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.