Bug 467798 - Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers
Summary: Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Adam Tkac
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-10-20 22:05 UTC by Paul Wouters
Modified: 2013-04-30 23:41 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-11-01 16:56:49 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
atkac: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Paul Wouters 2008-10-20 22:05:57 UTC
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: 
This is dnsperf, a collection of DNS server performance testing tools.
For more information, see the dnsperf(1) and resperf(1) man pages.
See http://www.nominum.com/services/measurement_tools.php

Comment 1 Paul Wouters 2008-10-21 14:48:25 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

Comment 2 Adam Tkac 2008-10-22 11:56:53 UTC
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

Comment 3 Paul Wouters 2008-10-22 17:20:25 UTC
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

Comment 4 Paul Wouters 2008-10-31 03:29:50 UTC
ping?

Comment 5 Adam Tkac 2008-10-31 12:53:36 UTC
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.

Comment 6 Paul Wouters 2008-10-31 13:38:54 UTC
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!

Comment 7 Paul Wouters 2008-10-31 13:45:15 UTC
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:

Comment 8 Adam Tkac 2008-10-31 14:08:04 UTC
(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 :)

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2008-10-31 17:00:02 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 10 Paul Wouters 2008-11-01 16:56:10 UTC
Oh, I had done that because you had said "licence should be MIT. Otherwise no problems." and I had made that change. sorry....


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