Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 490895
Bonnie++ version is precambrian.
Last modified: 2009-12-09 13:15:13 EST
Description of problem:
Bonnie++ version is precambrian
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
bonnie++: invalid option -- '-'
usage: bonnie++ [-d scratch-dir] [-s size(Mb)[:chunk-size(b)]]
[-x number-of-tests] [-u uid-to-use:gid-to-use] [-g gid-to-use]
[-q] [-f] [-b] [-p processes | -y]
Similar to the above, but the last line should read:
1.03e would likely be a much less painful upgrade. It adds direct IO support, which should make tests with smaller blocks more accurate.
Warren: I have some testing to do, so I'll build an upgraded package locally. If it works well for me, would you mind if I pushed that as an update?
Want to take over the package ownership?
1.95 is the one that uses parallel access. 1.03e is still precambrian.
(In reply to comment #2)
> Want to take over the package ownership?
"Want" is a strong word, but I can if you want me to. :-)
(In reply to comment #3)
> 1.95 is the one that uses parallel access. 1.03e is still precambrian.
The link to the 1.9x versions is labelled "New experimental releases, not for serious use". If Russell Coker says it is OK for us to package them for a stable distribution, I'd go along with it, but the "not for serious use" thing concerns me.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle.
Changing version to '11'.
More information and reason for this action is here:
The "not for serious use" is gone, and has been replaced with a deprecation warning for the 1.0 series. Time to start packaging 1.96?
I have given up ownership of this package. If anyone wants to update it just go ahead.
I've built the new .spec and SRPM files. You can find them at
The SRPM passes rpmlint without errors or warnings.
(In reply to comment #8)
> I have given up ownership of this package. If anyone wants to update it just
> go ahead.
I've rebuilt and signed the packages for Fedora 12. They're at
When can we roll this out?
I'(In reply to comment #10)
> I've rebuilt and signed the packages for Fedora 12. They're at
I merged your spec file with the existing, but stuck with the Makefile patch approach rather than use %makeinstall. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used .
Will commit to devel today.