[Bug 485596] Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking System
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Mar 27 00:33:48 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
--- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> 2009-03-26 20:33:21 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane.
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
1. The documentation says the license is GPLv3, but many of the headers
of the source files say "either version 3 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version." Perhaps it's worth clarifying with upstream if this should
GPLv3 or GPLv3+
2. rpmlint says:
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: non-executable-script
Should that be mode 755?
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL-devel
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency compat-libstdc++-33
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libXv-devel
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libXvMC-devel
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libaio-devel
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libjpeg-devel
phoronix-test-suite.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpng-devel
I think we can ignore those here, as this is a odd case.
3. We may want to think about removing the non free tests here.
Since they download non free software, I'm not sure thats something we
want to encourage or allow. I guess it's a gray area, but I thought I would
bring it up for more discussion.
4. I think we should look at handling the deps and downloads a better way.
For example, nexuiz gets downloaded and installed locally, even though it's
available in fedora. Would it be possible to patch things and get it to
use 'yum install' or 'pk-con install' to install Fedora packages of
dependencies and then use the fedora packaged versions?
That could be used to remove all the devel deps as well until needed.
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.
More information about the package-review