Bug 648053
| Summary: | Review Request: libMicro - Portable micro-benchmarks for various system and library calls | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Pierre Carrier <prc> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Gwyn Ciesla <gwync> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | c719711, fedora-package-review, gwync, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | gwync:
fedora-review?
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-02-28 15:55:25 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
Pierre Carrier
2010-10-30 18:03:21 UTC
I don't think we should use %{optflags} on this one, we don't want to impact the benchmark. Opinions appreciated.
Run rpmlint on the src.rpm and your built rpms. It's one of the things a packager ought to do. The ReviewGuidelines are not specific to the reviewer(s). ;) > %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/* What package owns %{_libexecdir}/%{name} then? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > I don't think we should use %{optflags} on this one, we don't want > to impact the benchmark. Opinions appreciated. Not using %optflags and hence also creating a bad -debuginfo package doesn't fly. How much overhead do you expect from the code that does the measuring compared with the actual execution time of the system calls? Thanks Michael. Updated. $ rpmlint -v RPMS/x86_64/libMicro-0.4.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm libMicro.x86_64: I: checking libMicro.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk libMicro.x86_64: I: checking-url http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+libmicro/ (timeout 10 seconds) libMicro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary multiview libMicro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bench 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. - rpmlint checks return: libMicro.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/download/Project+libmicro/Source+Archives/libmicro-0.4.0.tar.gz <urlopen error [Errno 104] Connection reset by peer> The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. libMicro.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+libmicro/ <urlopen error [Errno 104] Connection reset by peer> The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. Is this upstream still valid? libMicro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary multiview Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. libMicro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bench Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. If these exist, include them. Other than that and the awk spelling, it's quiet. ??? package meets naming guidelines If upstream is libmicro, why libMicro? OK package meets packaging guidelines OK license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source OK spec file legible, in am. english See above, can't check! source matches upstream OK on x86_64 package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR OK no locales OK not relocatable OK owns all directories that it creates OK no duplicate files OK permissions ok OK %clean ok OK macro use consistent OK code, not content OK no need for -docs OK nothing in %doc affects runtime OK no need for .desktop file Mock build to chck BRs in progress. Mock build good, BRs are Ok. So it's upstream URLs and name capitalization and that's it. new upstream release 0.4.1 : http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+libmicro/Source+Archives Any updates to your SRPM so I can finish this up? Ping? Ping? Closing due to lack of submitter response, if you still wish to get this package into Fedora please submit a new review. Thanks! |