[Bug 543689] New: Package review: libipathverbs - Driver library for libibverbs

[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.

Summary: Package review: libipathverbs - Driver library for libibverbs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543689

           Summary: Package review: libipathverbs - Driver library for
                    libibverbs
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: low
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org
        ReportedBy: dledford at redhat.com
         QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org
                CC: notting at redhat.com, fedora-package-review at redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora
    Target Release: ---


libipathverbs is a simple package that provides a low level hardware driver for
the libibverbs package.  The current package requires libibverbs-1.1.3 or later
to compile, and prebuilt versions as well as the spec file and srpm can be
found on my person web page at:

http://xsintricity.com/dledford/Package_Review/

rpmlint shows the following:

[dledford at firewall Package_Review]$ rpmlint libipathverbs*
libipathverbs.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver
libipathverbs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/ipath.driver
libipathverbs.spec:11: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver
libipathverbs-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
[dledford at firewall Package_Review]$ 

The first and third ones are correct as it's a psuedo provides that only exists
for the purpose of causing a yum install of libibverbs to pull in all the
hardware drivers that make libibverbs operate.

The second is a side effect of the libibverbs package.  It requires the file in
this location, but the file is not user changable and should not therefore be
labeled as a conf file.

The final one is because the -static package only has one file, the static
library.  All the docs are in the base package.

-- 
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.