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: sdparm - List or change SCSI disk parameters https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216519 ------- Additional Comments From peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-23 17:13 EST ------- Okey dokey. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Mock was being really weird last night. Let's get this party started (as the saying goes)... ---- ** MUST items ** GOOD: rpmlint is silent on the source and binary RPMs. GOOD: Package name and version follows the Naming Guidelines GOOD: The spec file matches the base package name: %{name}.spec GOOD: The package has an open-source compatible license (BSD) and meets the legal criteria for Fedora. The License tag in the spec file properly reflects this. GOOD: Spec file is written in American English and is legible (though I would align the tags at the top with spaces or tabs, but that's merely personal preference AFAIK, and definitely not a blocker in any way). GOOD: Source matches that of upstream. $ md5sum sdparm-1.00-*.tgz 1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5 sdparm-1.00-srpm.tgz 1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5 sdparm-1.00-upstream.tgz GOOD: Package successfully builds into binary RPMs on FC6/x86. GOOD: BuildRequires and Requires are correct.(The fact that they are not needed probably makes this a bit simpler. ^_^) GOOD: The %files section is okay. File and directory ownership does not conflict with system packages; and no duplicates are listed. The %defattr call is correct. GOOD: Package contains a %clean section, which consists of 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' GOOD: Macro usage is consistent. GOOD: Package contains code and permissible content. GOOD: %doc files do not affect runtime of program. ** SHOULD items ** GOOD: A copy of the license is included in the tarball as %doc ("COPYING"). GOOD: Package successfully builds in Mock for FC6 and Devel (both x86). GOOD: Packaged utility functions with no apparent errors or segfaults (tested with a WD Raptor SATA hard disk). ** Blockers ** BAD: The %changelog entries of those modifications before yours need to be made consistent with the Packaging Guidelines. See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213 for more information. BAD: The INSTALL file should not be packaged as %doc. Refer to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b for more info. ** Not Applicable ** N/A: The package does not require ExcludeArch semantics. N/A: The package does not require %find_lang semantics, since it installs no locales. N/A: The package does not require %post/%postun calls to /sbin/ldconfig, since it installs no shared libraries. N/A: Package is not relocatable. N/A: There is no large documentation, so a -doc subpackage is not needed. N/A: No header files, shared or static library files, so no -devel subpackage is needed. Package installs no libtool archives. N/A: The package contains no pkgconfig (.pc) files. N/A: Not a GUI application, so no .desktop file needed. N/A: The package does not use translations, so no translated %description or Summary tag is available. N/A: No scriplets are used. N/A: No subpackages exist, so worries about fully-versioned Requires for those are not present. ---- I cannot sponsor you, but looking through other review requests you've posted for eterm and such, I see that Ed Hill sponsored you in bug #182175; so I am able to APPROVE this once you fix these two blockers (assuming that his sponsorship still stands). -- 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