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: libmlx4 - Mellanox ConnectX InfiniBand HCA Userspace Driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=409511 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-27 01:38 EST ------- I guess all of the other reviewers are stared away by esoteric things like hardware we couldn't hope to afford, but I am fearless. Or am I insane? I keep forgetting. Builds OK for me on rawhide; rpmlint says: libmlx4.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/libibverbs.d/mlx4.driver If it's a config, you probably don't want an rpm update wiping out end-user customization, so you should use %config(noreplace). The difference is whether rpm creates a .rpmnew file instead of moving the old version to .rpmsave. libmlx4-devel-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation Not a problem. Generally, the package containing the static library should be named "-static". However, if this would leave the -devel package empty, you can put the library in the -devel package and have it provide -static. See the "Packaging Static Libraries" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. I know this package is a little odd (unversioned so, no headers to compile against) but I think the static library bits in the guidelines still cover this situation well enough. Since you install a shared library, you need to call ldconfig: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Checklist: * source files match upstream: ced3d0d5ac965e5d9c1230ecb98a6fb644906b6cdf25c117fabbdce0e0be2974 libmlx4-1.0.tar.gz X package does not follow the naming guidelines for static library packages. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * Ignoring the -static package issue, final provides and requires are sane: libmlx4-1.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm config(libmlx4) = 1.0-1.fc9 libmlx4-rdmav2.so()(64bit) libmlx4 = 1.0-1.fc9 = config(libmlx4) = 1.0-1.fc9 libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libmlx4-devel-static-1.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm libmlx4-devel-static = 1.0-1.fc9 = libmlx4 = 1.0-1.fc9 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I haven't a clue how to test this, and I don't have the hardware anyway. X a shared library is installed, but ldconfig is not run. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. X no scriptlets present (but there should be) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. X static libraries should be in the -devel package. * no libtool .la files. -- 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