Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 209511 - Review Request: gnbd - global network block device
Summary: Review Request: gnbd - global network block device
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ruben Kerkhof
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2006-10-05 18:10 UTC by Chris Feist
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-04-04 21:18:27 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Chris Feist 2006-10-05 18:10:41 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: User level packages for the gnbd (Global Network Block Device) for linux.  (This was previously included in FC-5 core.)

Comment 1 Bernard Johnson 2006-12-08 11:53:22 UTC
I don't see you in the owners list, so I can only provide you an unofficial
review.  I'm flipping the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker on for you too, since you will
have to have a sponsor do an official review.

rpmlint on all packages is silent.
mock-build on FC6 is successful

Must items:
      - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.

Include COPYING file in %doc

      - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.

I have not been able to verify this - Source0 should be a URL that points to the
donwloadable file.

      - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
[WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc

Document why ExclusiveArch is used.

      - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines.

Your macro use is consistent.  However, I would suggest replacing "./configure
--mandir=%{_mandir} --libdir=%{_libdir}" with "%{configure}"

Comment 2 Bernard Johnson 2006-12-10 01:11:55 UTC
Sorry, I should have left the FE-NEW blocker since I wasn't sponsored.  Fixing that.

Comment 3 Ruben Kerkhof 2007-01-21 21:24:47 UTC
Hi Chris,

Since you have been sponsored by jkatz before, I'll remove FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker.

* RPM name is OK
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint looks OK
* File list looks OK
* debuginfo rpm looks OK

Needs work:
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
  (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)

Please also fix the points Bernard noted in comment #1

Comment 4 Ruben Kerkhof 2007-03-23 08:08:19 UTC
Hi Chris,

Please respond, or I'll have to close this ticket in a week.

Comment 5 Ruben Kerkhof 2007-04-04 21:18:27 UTC
Sorry, I'll have to close this review.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.