[Bug 467798] New: Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: dnsperf -  Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467798

Summary: Review Request: dnsperf -  Benchmarking authorative
                    and recursing DNS servers
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: 
This is dnsperf, a collection of DNS server performance testing tools.
For more information, see the dnsperf(1) and resperf(1) man pages.
See http://www.nominum.com/services/measurement_tools.php

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters   2008-10-21 10:48:25 EDT ---
I was confused between libpcap and libcap. Fixed in 1.0.1.0-2

Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-2.fc9.src.rpm

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

Adam Tkac  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #2 from Adam Tkac   2008-10-22 07:56:53 EDT ---
source files match upstream: YES
package meets naming and versioning guidelines: YES
specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently:
YES
dist tag is present: YES
build root is correct: YES
license field matches the actual license: ???
license is open source-compatible???
License text included in package: NO
latest version is being packaged: YES
BuildRequires are proper: NO
compiler flags are appropriate: NO
%clean is present: YES
package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): NO
debuginfo package looks complete: NO
rpmlint is silent: NO
final provides and requires look sane: YES
%check is present and all tests pass: YES (check is not present)
owns the directories it creates: YES
doesn't own any directories it shouldn't: YES
no duplicates in %files: YES
file permissions are appropriate: YES
code, not content: YES
documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary: YES
-----
- could you please tell me where exactly licence can be found? I wasn't able to
find it.
- BuildRequires missing: openssl-devel, krb5-devel
- you are not passing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS to gcc
- debuginfo is broken due missing -g option (it is included in RPM_OPT_FLAGS)
- rpmlint warning:
  dnsperf.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System Environment/Utilities

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #3 from Paul Wouters   2008-10-22 13:20:25 EDT ---
Licence can only be found in the .c files. It's not anywhere else, I even
checked their website.

Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-3.fc9.src.rpm

* Wed Oct 22 2008 Paul Wouters  - 1.0.1.0-3
- Fixed missing buildrequires
- Pass proper CFLAGS to gcc
- Fix Group

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters   2008-10-30 23:29:50 EDT ---
ping?

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #5 from Adam Tkac   2008-10-31 08:53:36 EDT ---
The last problem is licence. As written on
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02697.html
licence should be MIT. Otherwise no problems.

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #6 from Paul Wouters   2008-10-31 09:38:54 EDT ---
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-4.fc9.src.rpm

* Wed Oct 31 2008 Paul Wouters  - 1.0.1.0-4
- Changed license from BSD to MIT

Thanks for the review Adam!

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

Paul Wouters  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs?

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #7 from Paul Wouters   2008-10-31 09:45:15 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: dnsperf
Short Description: Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers
Owners: pwouters
Branches: F-10 F-9 EL-5
InitialCC:

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #8 from Adam Tkac   2008-10-31 10:08:04 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf.spec
> SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/dnsperf/dnsperf-1.0.1.0-4.fc9.src.rpm
> Wed Oct 31 2008 Paul Wouters  - 1.0.1.0-4
> Changed license from BSD to MIT
>
> Thanks for the review Adam!

No problem ;) Btw you should not set fedora-review to + by yourself :)

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

Adam Tkac  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review+              |fedora-review?

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

Adam Tkac  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

--- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi   2008-10-31 13:00:02 EDT ---
cvs done.

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

--- Comment #10 from Paul Wouters   2008-11-01 12:56:10 EDT ---
Oh, I had done that because you had said "licence should be MIT. Otherwise no
problems." and I had made that change. sorry....

[Bug 467798] Review Request: dnsperf - Benchmarking authorative and recursing DNS servers

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=467798

Paul Wouters  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE