[Bug 691096] Review Request: iperf3 - Measurement tool for TCP/UDP bandwidth 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=691096

--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> 2011-04-10 17:02:32 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. 
See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. 
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. 
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
fde024a200b064b54accd1959f7e642e  iperf-3.0b4.tar.gz
fde024a200b064b54accd1959f7e642e  iperf-3.0b4.tar.gz.orig

See below - 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.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. 
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described. 
OK - Should have sane scriptlets. 
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin

Issues: 

1. Can you pick one of "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" or "%{buildroot}" and use that only
in the spec. Makes things more readable. ;) 

2. Some of the source files contain: 

 * Copyright (c) 2009, The Regents of the University of California, through
 * Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required
 * approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy).  All rights reserved.

I guess I would suggest a mail to upstream developers. Ask them if these 
files really are supposed to be released under the BSD license. :( 

3. Can you avoid %makeinstall ?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used

4. It looks like it's looking for uuid: 
checking for uuid_create... no
You might add uuid-devel to BuildRequires? 

5. rpmlint says: 
iperf3.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0b4-2 ['3.0-0.0.b4.fc15',
'3.0-0.0.b4']
the changelog should not have "3.0b4-2" but "3.0-0.0.b4"

-- 
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.