Bug 165487 - Review Request: Wmapmload monitors your apm status in an lcd display fashion
Review Request: Wmapmload monitors your apm status in an lcd display fashion
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: José Matos
David Lawrence
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-08-09 15:09 EDT by Andreas Bierfert
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-09-15 08:27:51 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Andreas Bierfert 2005-08-09 15:09:46 EDT
Spec Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wmapmload.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wmapmload-0.3.4-1.src.rpm
Wmapmload monitors your apm status in an lcd display fashion
Comment 1 José Matos 2005-09-12 03:47:16 EDT
Would you consider to rename the package to x11-applet-wmapmload? 
This kind of packages are really small, they are very usefull to small/older 
systems that do not support the heavier desktop environments (kde/gnome/xfce). 
In this case they are sufficiently small to be reasonable to have a single 
package containing them all. I know that this has lots of drawbacks and so 
I propose to give them a commom prefix. I suggest x11-applet but any other 
name that conveys the same meaning is OK with me. 
I have approved a previous package wmacpi from you and I propose to rename 
it as well. 
Comment 2 Andreas Bierfert 2005-09-12 04:23:07 EDT
I am not sure on how to deal with this. For me there is the conflict of original
name vs. prefix-name. I don't know which one is better. Maybe we can satisfy
both and make a virtual package which requires all dockapps that are part of FE.
This way we can still use the original names of the packages and also have a
nice and easy way to keep track of all the dockapps.

As to the naming of such a package? Maybe x11-dockapps? x11-applets? And if we
take this approach we might want to have some discussions about that as we would
need some sort of common process for this.
Comment 3 José Matos 2005-09-12 07:30:26 EDT
I will present these doubts in fedora packaging list and I will wait for some 
output before returning here. 
FWIW, the package looks OK. Nice work. 
Comment 4 José Matos 2005-09-15 08:26:56 EDT
+ the package builds in mock/x86_64   
+ rpmlint   
W: wmapmload no-version-in-last-changelog  
W: wmapmload-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog  
  These can be ignored.   
+ package name follows the guideline   
+ package follows packaging guidelines   
+ license is valid, matches upstream and is included  
+ spec file is legible and is written in American English   
+ source matches upstream   
+ Requires and BR OK   
+ files ownership OK  
One suggestion, replace the package version in Source by %{version}.  
It will save you some typing for future versions. :-)  

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.