Bug 590287

Created attachment 412602 [details]
Complete sources with a patch

CC: ing  Hans de Goede, because I see no activity here for two straight months.

Reassigning the component, since gkrellm developers do not care.

Created attachment 437317 [details]
A patch to enable proper multicore reporting in gkrellm-gkfreq

Not sure why I was Cc'd here, removing.  FWIW gkrellm-freq 2.0 is available which I suppose has support for up to 8 CPUs, see bug 621503 and http://sourceforge.net/projects/gkrellm-gkfreq/files/2.0/gkrellm-gkfreq-2.0.txt/view

(In reply to comment #5)
> Not sure why I was Cc'd here, removing.  FWIW gkrellm-freq 2.0 is available
> which I suppose has support for up to 8 CPUs, see bug 621503 and
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gkrellm-gkfreq/files/2.0/gkrellm-gkfreq-2.0.txt/view    

What an atrocity, an applet for _every_ CPU core, both virtual and real.

What if I have a system with two six cores Xeon CPUs with HT enabled - that will yield 24 virtual cores, so an end user should then have 24 indicators. No, thank you.

Artem,

First of all thanks for the patches and sorry for the lack of response. As yuo may have guessed gkrellm-freq is pretty much unsupported in Fedora atm. Matthias has not been really active lately. He is still around and sometimes does some stuff, so hence his packages have not been orphaned but he is not really active either.

So as you are interested in gkrellm-freq, maybe you want to maintain it ? If you are already a Fedora packager, picking up another package is easy. If not I can help you become a Fedora packager if you want.

About the patch, as said a newer upstream release already has support for this, so it seems to make more sense to upgrade to this new upstream release. I understand you don't like the upstream implementation of this support, but I think this is best discussed with the upstream author. Have you send your patch upstream? I think it would be best if upstream would add an option to make multiple cpu support use either one applet per core, or use your methodology so that the user can easily configure which one he wants. But that is something to discuss with upstream.

Regards,

Hans

This message is a reminder that Fedora 13 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 13.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '13'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 13's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 13 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

My approach and upstream approach are both very inconvenient - mine is not very informative, theirs requires too much vertical space.

CPU speed IMO should be represented graphically, e.g. using bars.

1-2 pixels wide green bar 3-4 pixels high may represent the lowest frequency, 7-9 pixels high red bar could mean the maximum frequency. Yellow in between.