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

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-07-17 09:46 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Are you sponsored into extras yet (as I'm not seeing you on the cvsextras 
> page).
>  If not, you should mark this bug as blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
> A couple thoughts on the spec, off the top of my head:
> * The macros you have defined at the top are rather redundant, as you use them
> to then populate the Name:, Version:, Release: tags, all of which (when
> populated) define macros of the same names you're using containing the exact
> same information.
> * You're using both, e.g., $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}.  Either or is 
> fine,
> but the packaging guidelines require us to be consistent within a specfile 
> (this
> is a "MUST").
> * In build, why not use "%configure"?  Similarly, in install, why not
> "%makeinstall"?  Both of those macros should take care of passing the
> information you're doing manually.  (Also, it would quiet rpmlint about "E:
> lsscsi configure-without-libdir-spec".)
> * There may be comments on the test before "rm -rf ..." in %clean.  I think 
> it's
> ok, as it will always evaluate to true in the buildsys, but it could be nixed
> for brevity's sake.
> That being said, I've built and installed this package on my system.  Works
> nicely for me, even against my SATA drives.

Good points, thanks.  Just to clarify, the spec file comes from the project
homepage; I just touched it up to silence some rpmlint complaints.  However,
it looks like it wasn't enough, so I'll incorporate your recommendations.

lsscsi is a very desirable addition since /proc/scsi/scsi runs out of memory
if there are a large number of LUNs (>512, I think), and any kernel patch
submitted to fix this problem is rejected (/proc/scsi/scsi is deprecated)
and the submitter is referred to lsscsi:


Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to