[Bug 967689] Review Request: tsung - A distributed multi-protocol load testing tool

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967689

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(lemenkov at gmail.co |
                   |m)                          |



--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> ---
Hello again, Christopher. Here I am again with my 

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

* First of all please add "%global debug_package %{nil}" to the top of the
package. This is a typical Erlang shortcoming - an arch-independent data is
installed into arch-dependent directory, so you can't mark it as noarch but
must disable bogus debuginfo subpackage generation. We (me with my fellow
colleague from SUSE community) are working on it.

* Please don't try to own the entire %{_libdir}/erlang/lib directory. Claim
%{_libdir}/erlang/lib/* instead.

There are few mire Erlang-related issues but I don't want to consider them as a
blockers. Instead I'll try to address/fix them in the meantime.

+/- rpmlint is not silent:

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/tsung-1.5.0-1.fc20.ppc.rpm
../SRPMS/tsung-1.5.0-1.fc20.src.rpm  | grep -v incorrect-fsf-address
tsung.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
tsung.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior
tsung.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuplot -> gnu plot,
gnu-plot, plotting

^^^ False positives.

tsung.ppc: E: no-binary
tsung.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib


^^^ that's normal for Erlang-related packages (as I explained above due to
known shortcomings we have to install noarch data into arch-dependent
directory).

tsung.ppc: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tsung/CONTRIBUTORS

^^^ Should be fixed, mostly cosmetic.

tsung.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/tsung-recorder.1.gz 1:
warning: macro `\"' not defined

^^^ Not sure about the severity of this issue but I'd like to see it fixed as
well.

tsung.ppc: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/tsung/tsung_plotter/tsung.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python

^^^ Explain what's the purpose of this file or just drop shebang.

tsung.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/tsung/examples/jabber_privacy.xml


^^^ Should be fixed (easy to fix).

tsung.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/tsplot.1.gz 1: warning:
macro `\"' not defined

^^^ See above. I'd like to see it fixed/explained.

tsung.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/tsung/examples/amqp.xml


^^^ Should be fixed (easy to fix).

tsung.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
tsung.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior
tsung.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuplot -> gnu plot,
gnu-plot, plotting

^^^ False positives.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 131 errors, 12 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:


+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict
GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum tsung-1.5.0.tar.gz*
9af5c1cc5bc064f85c11cbfdff42f4a36fdea53c51a30354d75f553c8c6ee83f 
tsung-1.5.0.tar.gz
9af5c1cc5bc064f85c11cbfdff42f4a36fdea53c51a30354d75f553c8c6ee83f 
tsung-1.5.0.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.

-/+ The package does bundles copies of system libraries but as I said I'd like
to import package as is and deal with these unwanted addons later.

+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.

- The package owns files or directories already owned by other packages (see my
note regarding %{_libdir}/erlang/lib above)
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Ok, please address/explain issues mentioned by me and I'll continue.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Z8oP3aKPte&a=cc_unsubscribe