[Bug 409511] Review Request: libmlx4 - Mellanox ConnectX InfiniBand HCA Userspace Driver

[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: libmlx4 - Mellanox ConnectX InfiniBand HCA Userspace Driver


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=409511


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  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.