Bug 226037 - Merge Review: libpfm
Summary: Merge Review: libpfm
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 19:26 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-02-26 16:47 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-02-26 16:47:44 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 19:26:19 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: libpfm

Initial Owner: wcohen@redhat.com

Comment 1 William Cohen 2007-01-31 20:04:33 UTC
I am willing to take this. I am a bit confused why this was marked as Nobody's
working on this and a in extra. Isn't libpfm marked as core? Why isn't pfmon not
marked in a similar manner?

Comment 2 Dennis Gilmore 2007-01-31 20:39:13 UTC
this is the review for the merge of Core and extras. you can't take it as you 
are the maintainer.  someone else needs to do the review.

Comment 3 William Cohen 2007-05-21 16:04:47 UTC
Someone else needs to go review of this. However, there are some minor
corrections looking through the checks on:


$ rpmlint libpfm-3.2-0.061205.1.fc8.src.rpm
W: libpfm summary-not-capitalized a performance monitoring library for Linux/ia64
W: libpfm no-url-tag
W: libpfm buildprereq-use ncurses-devel
W: libpfm redundant-prefix-tag
W: libpfm rpm-buildroot-usage %build make       PREFIX=/usr DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
W: libpfm patch-not-applied Patch1: libpfm-compat.patch
W: libpfm patch-not-applied Patch2: libpfm-3.2-showreginfo.patch

Comment 4 Patrice Dumas 2007-11-14 22:32:38 UTC
Is the static lib needed?

libpfm.so should be in -devel.

%{_prefix} should be used instead of PREFIX

The rpm dependency generator doesn't generate rightly the dependencies
certainly because the library file isn't executable. Then the %attr
can be dropped.

The timestamps should be kept.

Using %{PACKAGE_VERSION} is very strange in %files.

The buildroot is not the preferred one.

%doc for mandir is not needed.

Are the following really needed:
ExclusiveOS: linux
AutoReqProv: no

License is not right.

I don't think that libpfm-3.2-rpm_opt.patch is the right way to do.
I think that something like 
make CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
is simpler and less intrusive.

I suggest changing %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Comment 5 William Cohen 2010-02-26 16:47:44 UTC
Fedora 12/13 and RHEL-6 uses perf events there is no reason to keep the libpfm RPM around

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