[Bug 450483] libibmad package
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 28 15:01:12 UTC 2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: libibmad package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450483
ed at eh3.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ed at eh3.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2008-06-28 11:01 EST -------
Hi Doug, here's a quick review:
GOOD:
+ source matches upstream SHA1SUM:
1a2b36d0f309690ad660c9c1ff177f76c2484104 libibcommon-1.1.0.tar.gz
1a2b36d0f309690ad660c9c1ff177f76c2484104 libibcommon-1.1.0.tar.gz.UP
+ license is correct and correctly included in the main package
+ specfile looks clean and macros sane
+ proper use of ldconfig
+ *.la files are removed
+ proper use of -devel and -static
+ has %clean
+ builds in mock F8 x86_64
+ rpmlint reports just two ignore-able warnings:
libibcommon-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libibcommon-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
+ dir ownership looks good
+ permissions look good
NEEDSWORK:
- according to the review guidelines, the spec must have:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
or the equivalent at the start of %install section.
- Is the ExclusiveArch really necessary? Could it just be deleted?
I'm only asking because the review guidelines now include specific
rules concerning ExcludeArch and, if the ExclusiveArch is removed,
then I think the package will be fine wrt those guidelines. Maybe
a comment such as "is known to work on arches ... but has not been
tested on ..." would be enough?
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list