[Bug 450938] Review Request: fs_mark - Benchmark synchronous/async file creation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: fs_mark - Benchmark synchronous/async file creation


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450938


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2008-06-18 19:25 EST -------
Someone must have typoed a bug number in bodhi....

I would suggest using URL: http://developer.osdl.org/dev/doubt/fs_mark (since it
actually has some useful content) and Source0:
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/doubt/fs_mark/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tgz

The proper compilers aren't passed to the compiler, which results in a broken
debuginfo package (among other things).  You can fix this by changing the make
line to:
  CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" make %{?_smp_mflags}

Everything else seems to be fine.

* source files match upstream:
   ff6cdb29f55d3ea9dfd0261faeb1f65e35ea7092605cb330e77f4b1d6bebd87b  
   fs_mark-3.2.tgz
* 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.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
X compiler flags are not correct.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
X debuginfo package does not include source.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   fs_mark = 3.2-1.fc10
  =
   (no non-glibc dependencies)
* 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 -doc 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/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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]