Bug 467798
| Summary: | Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Paul Wouters <pwouters> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Adam Tkac <atkac> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | atkac, fedora-package-review, notting, ovasik |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | atkac:
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: | 2008-11-01 16:56:49 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
Paul Wouters
2008-10-20 22:05:57 UTC
I was confused between libpcap and libcap. Fixed in 1.0.1.0-2 Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-2.fc9.src.rpm source files match upstream: YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines: YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: YES dist tag is present: YES build root is correct: YES license field matches the actual license: ??? license is open source-compatible??? License text included in package: NO latest version is being packaged: YES BuildRequires are proper: NO compiler flags are appropriate: NO %clean is present: YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): NO debuginfo package looks complete: NO rpmlint is silent: NO final provides and requires look sane: YES %check is present and all tests pass: YES (check is not present) owns the directories it creates: YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't: YES no duplicates in %files: YES file permissions are appropriate: YES code, not content: YES documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary: YES ----- - could you please tell me where exactly licence can be found? I wasn't able to find it. - BuildRequires missing: openssl-devel, krb5-devel - you are not passing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS to gcc - debuginfo is broken due missing -g option (it is included in RPM_OPT_FLAGS) - rpmlint warning: dnsperf.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System Environment/Utilities Licence can only be found in the .c files. It's not anywhere else, I even checked their website. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-3.fc9.src.rpm * Wed Oct 22 2008 Paul Wouters <paul> - 1.0.1.0-3 - Fixed missing buildrequires - Pass proper CFLAGS to gcc - Fix Group ping? The last problem is licence. As written on https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02697.html licence should be MIT. Otherwise no problems. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-4.fc9.src.rpm * Wed Oct 31 2008 Paul Wouters <paul> - 1.0.1.0-4 - Changed license from BSD to MIT Thanks for the review Adam! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dnsperf Short Description: Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers Owners: pwouters Branches: F-10 F-9 EL-5 InitialCC: (In reply to comment #6) > Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec > SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-4.fc9.src.rpm > > > * Wed Oct 31 2008 Paul Wouters <paul> - 1.0.1.0-4 > - Changed license from BSD to MIT > > Thanks for the review Adam! No problem ;) Btw you should not set fedora-review to + by yourself :) cvs done. Oh, I had done that because you had said "licence should be MIT. Otherwise no problems." and I had made that change. sorry.... |