[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-05-29 20:18:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- flamethrower-0.10-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- flamethrower-0.10-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- flamethrower-0.10-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- flamethrower-0.10-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-07c9cee18f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- flamethrower-0.10-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a251c59e6c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- flamethrower-0.10-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-898440f612 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-a251c59e6c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a251c59e6c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-898440f612 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-898440f612 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-07c9cee18f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-07c9cee18f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flamethrower -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #8 from Petr Menšík --- Ah, thought they are recommended to include. Checked guidelines explcitly say not to be used. So okay, removed them. Thank you for review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- As said before,
Requires: ldns%{?_isa}
Requires: libuv%{?_isa}
are not needed, the libs are picked up automatically, you can check this by
doing:
rpm -q --requires -p flamethrower-0.10-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq
you'll see the .so being required.
Package is accepted, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #6 from Petr Menšík --- Spec URL: https://github.com/pemensik/flamethrower/raw/fedora/flamethrower.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pemensik/DNS-OARC/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01044585-flamethrower/flamethrower-0.10-2.fc32.src.rpm Fixed hopefully all issues mentioned. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138 --- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík --- Current patch link to pull request https://github.com/DNS-OARC/flamethrower/pull/19 Would update spec tomorrow, thank you guys! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138
--- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1)
> Some general hints:
>
> Drop this line:
> - %global commit v%{version}
>
> Simplify those lines:
> - URL:https://github.com/DNS-OARC/flamethrower
> - Source0:
> https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.
> gz
> + URL:https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}
> + Source0:%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz
This is good, I think it should be used.
>
> - Patch1: flamethrower-0.10-libuv.patch
> + Patch1: %{name}-0.10-libuv.patch
No, I do no think %{name} is useful when listing files. It should be named as
it is. Those files are named the same on filesystem.
Changing spec file name does not rename them. It is more handy to just select
and paste on full form.
>
> - make %{?_smp_mflags}
> + %make_build
>
> Why does %make_install not work though cmake is used to generate a useful
> Makefile?
No rules where it should be installed was given I suppose. It just lacks
install target.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed
# Flame requires explicit uv link
Patch1: flamethrower-0.10-libuv.patch
- Consider specifying the mode at install:
install -pDm 0755 flame ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_sbindir}/flame
install -pDm 0755 libflamecore.so ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/libflamecore.so
popd
install -pDm 0644 man/flame.1 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_mandir}/man1/flame.1
- Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line:
flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Flamethrower is a small,
fast, configurable tool for functional testing, benchmarking,
flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C and stress testing DNS
servers and networks. It supports IPv4, IPv6, UDP and TCP,
flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It was built as an
alternative to dnsperf, and many of the command line options are compatible.
- Not needed, lib dependencies are automatically detected:
Requires: ldns%{?_isa}
Requires: libuv%{?_isa}
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
"Apache License (v2.0)", "Expat License". 58 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/flamethrower/review-
flamethrower/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138
--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner ---
I'd even suggest to use:
+ Source0:
https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751138] Review Request: flamethrower - dnsperf alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751138
Raphael Groner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||projects...@smart.ms
--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner ---
Some general hints:
Drop this line:
- %global commit v%{version}
Simplify those lines:
- URL: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/flamethrower
- Source0:
https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
+ URL: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}
+ Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz
- Patch1: flamethrower-0.10-libuv.patch
+ Patch1: %{name}-0.10-libuv.patch
- make %{?_smp_mflags}
+ %make_build
Why does %make_install not work though cmake is used to generate a useful
Makefile?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
