[Bug 307901] Review Request: lsvpd - A utility to list device Vital Product Data (VPD) information.

Wed Mar 19 14:13:07 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: Review Request: lsvpd - A utility to list device Vital Product Data (VPD) information.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=307901

wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2008-03-19 10:13 EST -------
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:
lsvpd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/lsvpd/scsi_templates.conf
-> you should mark as %config each of the config files
lsvpd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lsvpd-1.6.2/COPYING
lsvpd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lsvpd-1.6.2/TODO
lsvpd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lsvpd-1.6.2/INSTALL
lsvpd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lsvpd-1.6.2/README
lsvpd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lsvpd-1.6.2/NEWS
-> either an %attr or a chmod -x would fix this
lsvpd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/lsvpd/cpu_mod_conv.conf
-> same as above
lsvpd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog -1.6.2-3 1.6.2-3.fc9
-> ignorable
lsvpd.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%post /usr/sbin/vpdupdate
-> ignorable, although joining %post and the vpupdate line will make rpmlint happier
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: GPLv2+
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package:
32596c0297884c42937380d06139c5ea2bf0e436  lsvpd-1.6.2.tar.gz (upstream)
bdd61e818c2fbf71315168db95716393f2dc07e0  lsvpd-1.6.2.tar.gz.1 (included in the
src.rpm)
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArchd$
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
warning: File listed twice: /etc/lsvpd/cpu_mod_conv.conf
warning: File listed twice: /etc/lsvpd/scsi_templates.conf
-> Please either include the whole dir, or the files below it
 [!] Permissions on files are set properly.
-> see above the issue with doc files
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: all archs supported by rawhide
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: all archs supported by rawhide
 [-] Package functions as described.
I could not test, the package does not build in F-7/F-8 due to missing libvpd-devel.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===
1. the bundled sources and the upstream ones do not coincide
2. some of the included files have unrecommended permissions
3. two files are included twice

Please fix the above and we are good to go.

-- 
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.