Bug 1729939 - Requirements netperf missing
Summary: Requirements netperf missing
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: flent
Version: 31
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-Legal
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-07-15 11:33 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2020-06-11 11:50 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2019-07-15 11:33:24 UTC
Description of problem:
13:26:55 ERROR: Runner Ping (ms) UDP EF failed check: No netperf binary found in PATH.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
flent-1.3.0-1.fc30.noarch

How reproducible:
Try to run a test.

Actual results:
Error message that netperf is missing.

Expected results:
Run the tests and get the result.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 2019-07-15 13:11:35 UTC
Yeah, netperf is sadly missing from Fedora, and don't think it can be included because of the license (https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/blob/master/COPYING - it's "non-commercial use only", so not free software).

However, there is still value in packaging up Flent for Fedora:

- It can be used to view data files produced on other machines
- There are a subset of the tests that do not require netperf
- Users can manually compile/install netperf


For an example of a test that should work with the current package, try running the 'ping' test...

Comment 2 Fabian Affolter 2019-07-15 21:39:01 UTC
> Yeah, netperf is sadly missing from Fedora, and don't think it can be included because of the license (https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/blob/master/COPYING - it's "non-commercial use only", so not free software).

Fedora Packaging Guidelines: "All package dependencies (build-time or runtime, regular, weak or otherwise) MUST ALWAYS be satisfiable within the official Fedora repositories.". We can start to interpret that here but it's a fact that without netperf flent-gui is basically a viewer and flent itself is pretty useless. Especially that iperf and fping are not pulled-in during the installation and irtt is not available in the Fedora Package Collection.

> - Users can manually compile/install netperf

Sure they can but I guess that in 95 % of all cases they will try to work with an existing RPM and those RPMs usually don't support demo mode.

> For an example of a test that should work with the current package, try running the 'ping' test...

Not on a default Fedora 30 installation:

$ flent ping -H localhost
Started Flent 1.3.0 using Python 3.7.3.
Starting ping test. Expected run time: 60 seconds.
ERROR: Runner Ping (ms) UDP failed check: No netperf binary found in PATH.

Comment 3 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 2019-07-15 22:26:00 UTC
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2)
> > Yeah, netperf is sadly missing from Fedora, and don't think it can be included because of the license (https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/blob/master/COPYING - it's "non-commercial use only", so not free software).
> 
> Fedora Packaging Guidelines: "All package dependencies (build-time or
> runtime, regular, weak or otherwise) MUST ALWAYS be satisfiable within the
> official Fedora repositories.". We can start to interpret that here but it's
> a fact that without netperf flent-gui is basically a viewer and flent itself
> is pretty useless. Especially that iperf and fping are not pulled-in during
> the installation and irtt is not available in the Fedora Package Collection.

Well, I can certainly add harder dependencies for iperf and fping; and I'm planning to package irtt as well. A bit longer term, there have already been requests upstream to have iperf and netperf be more interchangeable, but it's not quite trivial, unfortunately...

> > - Users can manually compile/install netperf
> 
> Sure they can but I guess that in 95 % of all cases they will try to work
> with an existing RPM and those RPMs usually don't support demo mode.

Which is a bug in those RPMs, IMO. Is there a repo where people usually get these things from?

> > For an example of a test that should work with the current package, try running the 'ping' test...
> 
> Not on a default Fedora 30 installation:
> 
> $ flent ping -H localhost
> Started Flent 1.3.0 using Python 3.7.3.
> Starting ping test. Expected run time: 60 seconds.
> ERROR: Runner Ping (ms) UDP failed check: No netperf binary found in PATH.

Heh, right, it needs either irtt or netperf. Well, guess I should start by packaging up irtt, then :)

Comment 4 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 17:03:42 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to '31'.

Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 19:02:17 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to 31.

Comment 6 Wes Turner 2020-06-11 06:53:16 UTC
I may be misunderstanding the license terms as well, but:

This [1] reads:

>   The enclosed software and documentation includes copyrighted works
>  of Hewlett-Packard Co. For as long as you comply with the following
>  limitations, you are hereby authorized to (i) use, reproduce, and
>  modify the software and documentation, and to (ii) distribute the
>  software and documentation, including modifications, for
>  non-commercial purposes only.

This is not an OSI-approved license by any means, but in interpreting this clause:
"(ii) distribute the software and documentation, including modifications, for non-commercial purposes only"
I'm not sure that fedora distributing the package (and any patches, if necessary) is commercial use?

Does that mean that you cannot *sell* HP's netperf package, but you *can include the package in free software repositories*?

[1] https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/blob/master/COPYING

Comment 7 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 2020-06-11 10:36:13 UTC
I suspect the answer to that is more complicated than any common-sense interpretation might suggest. I guess it wouldn't hurt to get someone with legal expertise to take a look just in case...

Comment 8 Fabian Affolter 2020-06-11 11:50:52 UTC
I'm setting the legal blocker. I assume that Tom can help.


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