[Bug 520701] Review Request: seeker - Random access disk benchmark utility

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520701





--- Comment #1 from David Timms <dtimms at iinet.net.au>  2009-09-13 09:45:46 EDT ---
Since I have played with this tool, I was considering packaging it... you beat
me to it. Review begins:
=====
OK  rpmlint seeker.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK  rpmlint seeker-3.0-1.fc11.src.rpm 
error checking signature of seeker-3.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK  name is non-conflicting with linux existing packages, fairly unique, first
response in a google search.
    Note: a windows program exists with the name:
Seeker for Windows (Box+Download) (
An Immersive 3D Solar System Experience
Seeker is an immersive and interactive three dimensional solar simulator for
your Windows Vista or XP computer. Experience simulated space flight and travel
to, orbit and explore the Sun, Moon, planets, asteroids, and satellites with
stunning realism...
  I don't think that is a problem since it isn't open source and there isn't
linux version.

OK  spec named as package name.
OK  the original author asserts license: GNU General Public License v2. 
OK  spec specifies same license GPLv2.
OK  license file has been created using the author's quoting of intent, and
included in %doc
OK  spec is legible english
OK  the upstream is a single c source file:
sha1sum seeker_baryluk.c ../upstream/seeker_baryluk.c 
5c472a283c499c053bc4610a63b2db6015b45263  seeker_baryluk.c
5c472a283c499c053bc4610a63b2db6015b45263  ../upstream/seeker_baryluk.c
OK  compiles to binaries on f11-i586, only arch I tested.
OK  rpmlint on built packages has no warnings nor errors.
OK   requires package glibc-headers, this is not in the requires exception
list, but I think would be brought in automatically through other packages in
the list. rpm -q --requires shows that libc (GLIBC) has been automatically
added.

NA  no locales.
NA  no shared libs.
NA  not relocatable.
OK  owns files/folders that it creates, no duplicates.
OK  permissions: binary is executable and read only for normal users, doc is
readonly for normal users. has the standard defattr line.
OK  clean standard line is included.
OK  is consistently using macros.
OK  code contains excecutable, allowed content.
OK  doc is very small
OK  %doc files are not part of the util.
OK  no header files, no static libraries, no pkconfig, no suffixed libs
OK  not a devel package, no .la archives.
OK  not a GUI app. 
OK  only owns files/folders it installs.
OK  install cleans buildroot
OK  filenames are good.
OK  utility runs and produces results as expected.
=====
So, pretty well right to go, with just a few things to clarify / queries:
?   Witold Baryluk's modification is the multithreaded version that is being
packaged here. I think that explicitly stating that in the Description, and
with the Source0: comment would be a good idea. It does seem to be the most
appropriate version to package.

?   Would it be worth having a script that enumerates connected disks, and
performs the test on each one, pausing at completion ? And providing a desktop
file as an easy way to run it ?

?   why is the binary being placed in /usr/sbin ?

?   consider including in %doc the html saveas from the original web site,
since it gives a decent background on usage. Most users wouldn't know to check
the url/source to find out more. Not sure if that would be suitable for the
package description (ie add URL).

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