Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libcxgb3 hardware driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451095 ed@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ed@xxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ed@xxxxxxx 2008-06-28 11:53 EST ------- Here's a quick review: GOOD: + source matches upstream SHA1SUM: 4aa38c77c42ebbd07d724f2df6cf2e108af03c8d libcxgb3-1.2.1.tar.gz 4aa38c77c42ebbd07d724f2df6cf2e108af03c8d libcxgb3-1.2.1.tar.gz.UP + license is correct and correctly included in the main package + specfile looks clean and macros sane + *.la files are removed + builds in mock F8 x86_64 + rpmlint reports: libcxgb3.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes %{name}-devel libcxgb3.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modprobe.d/libcxgb3.conf libcxgb3.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/cxgb3.driver libcxgb3.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libcxgb3-devel libcxgb3-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation + dir ownership looks good + permissions look good I think the "Obsoletes: %{name}-devel" is harmless. If, as Doug points out, it helps users upgrade from upstream/3rd-party RPMs then I'd like to allow it. I don't see any blockers here so its APPROVED. -- 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