[Bug 460707] Review Request: httperf - Tool for measuring web server performance

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=460707


Lucian Langa <cooly at gnome.eu.org> changed:

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




--- Comment #1 from Lucian Langa <cooly at gnome.eu.org>  2008-10-11 08:01:45 EDT ---
Review:

OK  source files match upstream :
    2968c36b9ecf3d98fc1f2c1c9c0d9341 httperf-0.9.0.tar.gz
OK  package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK  specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK  summary is OK.
OK  description is OK.
OK  dist tag is present.
OK  build root
OK  license field matches the actual license.
OK  license is open source-compatible. license text not included upstream.
OK  BuildRequires are proper.
N/A compiler flags are appropriate.
OK  %clean is present.
OK  package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
OK  package installs properly.
OK  debuginfo package looks complete.
OK  rpmlint is silent.
OK  final provides and requires are sane:
   httperf = 0.9.0-1.fc10
   httperf(x86-64) = 0.9.0-1.fc10
  =
   libc.so.6()(64bit)  
   libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
   libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)  
   libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)  
   libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)  
   libm.so.6()(64bit)  
   libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
   libnsl.so.1()(64bit)  
   libresolv.so.2()(64bit)  
   rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
   rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
   rtld(GNU_HASH)
OK  no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
N/A owns the directories it creates.
OK  doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK  no duplicates in %files.
OK  file permissions are appropriate.
OK  no scriptlets present.
OK  code, not content.
OK  documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
OK  no headers.
OK  no pkgconfig files.
OK  no static libraries.
OK  no libtool .la files.
N/A not GUI application.

Suggestion:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
    To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
   make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot}


APPROVED.

-- 
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.