[Bug 216519] Review Request: sdparm - List or change SCSI disk parameters

Thu Nov 23 22:13:03 UTC 2006

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: sdparm -  List or change SCSI disk parameters

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216519

------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com  2006-11-23 17:13 EST -------
Okey dokey. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Mock was being really
weird last night. Let's get this party started (as the saying goes)...

---- 
** MUST items **
GOOD: rpmlint is silent on the source and binary RPMs.

GOOD: Package name and version follows the Naming Guidelines

GOOD: The spec file matches the base package name: %{name}.spec

GOOD: The package has an open-source compatible license (BSD) and meets the
legal criteria for Fedora. The License tag in the spec file properly reflects this.

GOOD: Spec file is written in American English and is legible (though I would
align the tags at the top with spaces or tabs, but that's merely personal
preference AFAIK, and definitely not a blocker in any way).

GOOD: Source matches that of upstream.
  $ md5sum sdparm-1.00-*.tgz
  1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5  sdparm-1.00-srpm.tgz
  1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5  sdparm-1.00-upstream.tgz

GOOD: Package successfully builds into binary RPMs on FC6/x86.

GOOD: BuildRequires and Requires are correct.(The fact that they are not needed
probably makes this a bit simpler. ^_^)

GOOD: The %files section is okay. File and directory ownership does not conflict
with system packages; and no duplicates are listed. The %defattr call is correct.

GOOD: Package contains a %clean section, which consists of 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' 

GOOD: Macro usage is consistent.

GOOD: Package contains code and permissible content.

GOOD: %doc files do not affect runtime of program.

** SHOULD items **
GOOD: A copy of the license is included in the tarball as %doc ("COPYING").

GOOD: Package successfully builds in Mock for FC6 and Devel (both x86).

GOOD: Packaged utility functions with no apparent errors or segfaults (tested
with a WD Raptor SATA hard disk).

** Blockers **
BAD: The %changelog entries of those modifications before yours need to be made
consistent with the Packaging Guidelines. See
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213
for more information.

BAD: The INSTALL file should not be packaged as %doc. Refer to
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
for more info.

** Not Applicable **
N/A: The package does not require ExcludeArch semantics.

N/A: The package does not require %find_lang semantics, since it installs no
locales.

N/A: The package does not require %post/%postun calls to /sbin/ldconfig, since
it installs no shared libraries. 

N/A: Package is not relocatable.

N/A: There is no large documentation, so a -doc subpackage is not needed.

N/A: No header files, shared or static library files, so no -devel subpackage is
needed. Package installs no libtool archives.

N/A: The package contains no pkgconfig (.pc) files.

N/A: Not a GUI application, so no .desktop file needed.

N/A: The package does not use translations, so no translated %description or
Summary tag is available.

N/A: No scriplets are used.

N/A: No subpackages exist, so worries about fully-versioned Requires for those
are not present.

----

I cannot sponsor you, but looking through other review requests you've posted
for eterm and such, I see that Ed Hill sponsored you in bug #182175; so I am
able to APPROVE this once you fix these two blockers (assuming that his
sponsorship still stands).

-- 
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.