Bug 326831
Summary: | Review Request: kcbench - Kernel compile benchmark | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-10-15 18:49:07 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 326841 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Thorsten Leemhuis
2007-10-10 19:23:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > The data-files needed will be submitted in a separate package. Can be found in Bug 326841. This a trivial single shell script installed into %{_bindir}. I'm not even sure what the point in running through a review checklist would be. The package builds and installs fine (with the dependencies in a local repo). rpmlint complains about the lack of documentation, which is honestly valid; a quick readme might be nice. The only thing I can see as a problem is that you can install this and then not be able to run it because of missing dependencies. I know it checks for some things it needs, but I think it's better to have those in the dependency list since otherwise installing this package is pointless. (In reply to comment #2) > rpmlint complains about the lack of documentation, which is honestly valid; > a quick readme might be nice. Added > The only thing I can see as a problem is that you can install this and then not > be able to run it because of missing dependencies. I added make, binutils and gcc (without version, as those currently in Fedora -- that should work fine) Did some small improvements to the kcbench script itself while at it as well. Spec URL: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/SPECS.fdr/kcbench.spec SRPM URL: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/SRPMS.fdr/kcbench-0.1-2.src.rpm SRPM DIFF URL: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/DIFFS.fdr/kcbench.rpmdiff Looks good to me; frankly I don't know exactly what is required to build a kernel, but the Fedora pakage specifies a bit more than just make, gcc and binutils: module-init-tools patch >= 2.5.4 bash >= 2.03 sh-utils tar bzip2 findutils gzip m4 perl make >= 3.78 diffutils gawk gcc >= 3.4.2 binutils >= 2.12 redhat-rpm-config I can't say how much of that is specific to the Fedora kernels, though. Still, I'm sure if anything turns up missing then you can just add it. APPROVED (In reply to comment #4) > Looks good to me; frankly I don't know exactly what is required to build a > kernel, but the Fedora pakage specifies a bit more than just make, gcc and > binutils: > module-init-tools > patch >= 2.5.4 > bash >= 2.03 > sh-utils > tar > bzip2 > findutils > gzip > m4 > perl > make >= 3.78 > diffutils > gawk > gcc >= 3.4.2 > binutils >= 2.12 > redhat-rpm-config > > I can't say how much of that is specific to the Fedora kernels, though. I'd say everything except make, gcc and binutils. Well, in fact module-init-tools might be needed if one compiles a kernel with modules -- but kcbench doesn't do that. > Still, I'm sure if anything turns up missing then you can just add it. Sure! > APPROVED thx tibbs New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: kcbench Short Description: Kernel compile benchmark Owners: thl Branches: F-7, EL-5 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. thx everyone; imported and build |