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: silo - The SILO boot loader for SPARCs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252456 jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-25 12:51 EST ------- OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Spec provides updated License tag OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 7039aabf3c1b3858ae8d0ccdde21343e silo-1.4.13.tar.bz2 7039aabf3c1b3858ae8d0ccdde21343e silo-1.4.13.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below (#1) - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - 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. See below (#2) - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: Provides: silo = 1.4.13-5.fc8 Requires: /bin/sh /bin/sh libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. See below (#3) - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Notes: #1: %defattr(-,root,root) -> %defattr(-,root,root,-) #2: $ rpmlint silo-1.4.13-5.fc8.sparc.rpm silo.sparc: E: statically-linked-binary /boot/ieee32.b Is this a blocker? Considering it appears to be a first-stage bootloader, I'm quite hesitant to say so. #3: Ha, ha, ha. I think we can safely ignore this for an arch-specific bootloader. Fix #1, and provide some feedback on #2 and #3 (Spot? Peter?), and I think we're good. Also, this bug depends on BZ#253043, which is (I believe) approved and built. Care to close that? :-) -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review