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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
