Bug 214893
| Summary: | Review Request: sipp - SIP test tool / traffic generator | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jeffrey C. Ollie <jeff> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | Flags: | jeff:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | sipp-3.3-6.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-06-13 10:22:34 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Peter Lemenkov
2006-11-09 21:30:37 UTC
First of all, the RPM that you supplied needs to BR ncurses-devel or it won't build in mock. Second, is there are reason that you didn't package 1.1rc6? Version 1.0 is quite old and it looks like there is quite a long time between 1.1rc releases - almost six months between rc5 and rc6. I don't follow sipp development so I don't know why it's taking them so long to make a non-"rc" release. Any updates? Yes, there are some. First, I updated packate to version 1.1rc6. So far I faced the "correct numbering" problem - 1.1rc6 isn't a correct name. Should we name it in some different manner, for example 1.1-0.rc6.1? Another one thing worth to mention is a clause in LICENSE.txt. Looks like some part of package distributed covered by different license (BSD variant?). I added another two BR: openssl-devel and libpcap-devel (they're significantly increase functionality, for example digest authentication in scenarios). Another one add-on is patch which fixes this package's buildscripts. http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/sipp.spec http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/sipp-1.1rc6-0.src.rpm Version 1.1.rc8 http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/sipp.spec http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/sipp-1.1-0.rc8.src.rpm changed naming scheme. Peter, sorry it's taken so long to do this review:
* source files match upstream
94bddbc6def599ed59c87fdd9edf5486 sipp-1.1rc8.src.tar.gz
94bddbc6def599ed59c87fdd9edf5486 sipp-1.1rc8.src.tar.gz.1
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (except as noted below).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are not appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (fc6 i386).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent:
* %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution.
* no shared libraries are present
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers
* no unversioned .so file
* no pkconfig file
* no libtool .la droppings.
Suggestions:
* Package README.txt, MEDIA.txt, and the contents of the pcap
directory as %doc.
Blockers:
* The code is not built using the standard compiler flags. Modifying
the build section to look like this will build the package with the
proper flags:
DEBUG_FLAGS="%{optflags}" %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} pcapplay_ossl
The compile produces a lot of warning flags, but it completes and
produces an executable.
However, once I compiled sipp with the standard compiler flags the
buffer overflow checking code is triggered when I run the following
commands in separate windows (as a non-root user):
sipp -sn uac -i 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
sipp -sn uas -i 127.0.0.1
That seems very bad to me... probably something to diecuss with the
upstream authors.
> * Package README.txt, MEDIA.txt, and the contents of the pcap > directory as %doc. Done. I packaged pcap and its contents in %{_datadir}. > * The code is not built using the standard compiler flags. Modifying > the build section to look like this will build the package with the > proper flags: Done. http://lemenkov.googlepages.com/sipp.spec http://lemenkov.googlepages.com/sipp-2.0-1.src.rpm Peter, thanks for hanging in with me. Ok, it's looking good, except for /usr/share/sipp is not owned anymore. Fix that up before you import and this package is APPROVED. Done. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: sipp Short Description: SIP test tool / traffic generator Owners: lemenkov Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: lemenkov CVS done, except that I can't quite understand why you'd want to be in initialcc if you're the owner so I left that field blank. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sipp New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 added Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sipp New Branches: epel7 Owner not specified. (In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #13) > Owner not specified. Sorry! Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sipp New Branches: epel7 Owners: peter Git done (by process-git-requests). sipp-3.3-6.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sipp-3.3-6.el7 sipp-3.3-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. |