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: lsscsi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198928 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-20 22:13 EST ------- Chip, I'll sponsor you, now that Chris has done all of the work. rpmnlint has one complaint about the spec: W: lsscsi mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs cat -T shows this coming from spaces after the colons in Summary:, Name:, Version:, and Release:. Terribly minor, I know, but there's no reason not to fix it. (You only see this if you run rpmlint against the src.rpm.) I guess it's pretty pointless for a package with one source file, but generally folks with multiprocessor machines appreciate it when you add %{?_smp_mflags} to your make line to build things in parallel. As long as it doesn't break the build, of course. (And if it does break the build, add a comment to indicate that fact.) The only other thing is the oddity of including the author information at the end of %description. Then again, it would be somewhat uncouth to grab his specfile and then cut his name out of it, so I'm not sure what to do. I'll leave it up to you. With only the space/tab thing to fix, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: c05c1cc6e6c425d86bf41e2ab0f09172 lsscsi-0.17.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * Compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint is silent (minor tabs/spaces thing) * debuginfo package looks complete. * final provides and requires are sane: lsscsi = 0.17-2 = libc.so.6()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. (Technically the documentation is larger then the executable, but we're talking about 25K total here.) * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED Go ahead and request cvsextras and fedorabugs access and I'll approve you. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#GetAFedoraAccount for details. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review