Fedora Merge Review: libpfm http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libpfm/ Initial Owner: wcohen
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?
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.
Someone else needs to go review of this. However, there are some minor corrections looking through the checks on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines: $ 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} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} W: libpfm patch-not-applied Patch1: libpfm-compat.patch W: libpfm patch-not-applied Patch2: libpfm-3.2-showreginfo.patch
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,-)
Fedora 12/13 and RHEL-6 uses perf events there is no reason to keep the libpfm RPM around