[Bug 450481] libibcommon package

[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: libibcommon package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450481


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 12:01 EST -------
Here's a review (this time pasted into the correct bz entry!):

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.