[Bug 1628752] Review Request: ipmctl - Utility for managing Intel DCPMM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628752



--- Comment #2 from Juston Li <juston.li@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jhli/ipmctl/fedora-28-x86_64/00799986-ipmctl/ipmctl.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jhli/ipmctl/fedora-28-x86_64/00799986-ipmctl/ipmctl-01.00.00.3262-1.fc28.src.rpm

Fixed except the two below, Let me know if you still think they should be
changed.

Thank you for doing the review! It is very much appreciated!

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) 
>  - If you obsolete stuff, you should add similar Provides in order to have
> an upgrade path for your users:
> 
> Obsoletes:	ixpdimm-cli < 01.00.00.3000
> 
> Obsoletes:	ixpdimm_sw < 01.00.00.3000
> Obsoletes:	libixpdimm-common < 01.00.00.3000
> Obsoletes:	libixpdimm-core < 01.00.00.3000
> Obsoletes:	libixpdimm-cli < 01.00.00.3000
> Obsoletes:	libixpdimm-cim < 01.00.00.3000
> Obsoletes:	libixpdimm < 01.00.00.3000
> Obsoletes:	ixpdimm-data < 01.00.00.3000
> 
> → obsolete-not-provided:
> If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
> should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency
> breakage.
> If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
> leave out the Provides.
> 

I considered it an incompatible replacement, it is based on a new codebase and
went through a number of other changes. ixpdimm_sw has not been distributed in
months and all users should have migrated to ipmctl.

>  - Are you sure you need to specify the lib dependency in ipmctl and
> ipmctl-monitor? Usually RPM is able to pick up what libs are necessary
> automatically.
> 
> Requires:	libipmctl%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> I've checked and libipmctl.so.2()(64bit) is indeed picked up, so you don't
> need these Requires.

The binary and lib are always compiled and released together. I do agree these
requires don't seem to be needed but separate versions are not validated so I'd
like to keep them together just in case there are any issues.

Thanks again!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux