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