[Bug 198928] Review Request: lsscsi

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: lsscsi


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198928


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841              |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-07-20 22:13 EST -------
Chip, I'll sponsor you, now that Chris has done all of the work.

rpmnlint has one complaint about the spec:
  W: lsscsi mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
cat -T shows this coming from spaces after the colons in Summary:, Name:,
Version:, and Release:.  Terribly minor, I know, but there's no reason not to
fix it.  (You only see this if you run rpmlint against the src.rpm.)

I guess it's pretty pointless for a package with one source file, but generally
folks with multiprocessor machines appreciate it when you add %{?_smp_mflags} to
your make line to build things in parallel.  As long as it doesn't break the
build, of course.  (And if it does break the build, add a comment to indicate
that fact.)

The only other thing is the oddity of including the author information at the
end of %description.  Then again, it would be somewhat uncouth to grab his
specfile and then cut his name out of it, so I'm not sure what to do.  I'll
leave it up to you.
 
With only the space/tab thing to fix, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can
fix it when you check in.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   c05c1cc6e6c425d86bf41e2ab0f09172  lsscsi-0.17.tgz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* 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 (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint is silent (minor tabs/spaces thing)
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   lsscsi = 0.17-2
  =
   libc.so.6()(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.  (Technically the
documentation is larger then the executable, but we're talking about 25K total
here.)
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED

Go ahead and request cvsextras and fedorabugs access and I'll approve you.  See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#GetAFedoraAccount for details.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.