[Bug 250504] Review Request: blktrace - block IO tracer

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Aug 15 05:07:49 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: blktrace - block IO tracer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250504





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-08-15 01:07 EST -------
I'm sorry for taking so long with this, but lately I've been having trouble
finding any free time.

The license should be GPLv2+ according to the information in the source files.

Other than a complaint about the license, rpmlint is silent.

The "pre-release naming conventions" it looks like you're following relate to
when you have no Source URL and are constructing a snapshot from upstream's SCM.
 In this case you have a tarball should follow upstream's naming conventions. 
That said, I have no particular issue with moving the "git" bit to the end.

There's a COPYING file in the tarball; it needs to be included in the built package.

The proper CFLAGS aren't passed to the compiler, although the debuginfo package
looks OK because -g is in the default set.  Unfortunately the Makefiles are
rather poor; I added CFLAGS="%{optflags}" to the make line and that gets the
proper flags passed, but this causes things to fail to build.  Looks like some
Makefile patching is in order.

* source files match upstream:
   70aa39a254b6c4007e5f184829a5fb7cae354efbf6801883f49853519a02cf99
   blktrace-git-20070730162628.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field should be GPLv2+
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text is in tarball but not included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are not appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint complains about the license.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   blktrace = 0.0-0.3.20070730162628git.fc8
  =
   /bin/sh
   libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
   libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  The executables seem to run 
   without crashing, but outside of that I've no idea how to test this package.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list