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: scsi-target-utils - SCSI target daemon and tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245708 notting@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From notting@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-02 17:21 EST ------- MUST: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - *** Upstream package name appears to be 'tgt'. While scsi-target-utils is certainly more informative, is there a particular reason for the disconnect? I also notice the upstream project name is 'stgt' while upstream source is 'tgt'. - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - OK - License field in spec matches - OK - License file included in package - *** A copy of GPL2 is not included. Doesn't appear to be included upstream, either. - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - No - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - N/A - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage. - N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - N/A - .la files are removed. - N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - N/A - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output. *** Source rpm: W: scsi-target-utils strange-permission tgtd.init 0755 - can be ignored Binary rpm: E: scsi-target-utils init-script-without-chkconfig-postin /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd E: scsi-target-utils init-script-without-chkconfig-preun /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd See below. E: scsi-target-utils incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd tgtd] Typo? W: scsi-target-utils no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/tgtd See below. W: scsi-target-utils incoherent-init-script-name tgtd Not sure what to make of this warning. - final provides and requires are sane: See below about chkconfig. Otherwise reasonable. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK - Should build on all supported archs - only tested x86_64 - Should function as described. - did not test - Should have sane scriptlets. - *** Missing the proper scriptlets for adding/removing scripts. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets See the section on chkconfig Requires: there as well; as it is now, they're wrong. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - N/A - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK Other comments: 1. Versioning - this uses 0.1 for the package version. Upstream versioning is done by date; the package should reflect that. 2. The init script - various issues 1) doesn't actually do anything sane if it fails to start 2) doesn't have a reload entry (if it's possible) 3) doesn't use the proper LSB return codes 3. Xen support - is not built. Should it be? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review