Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 216517
Review Request: gnome-valgrind-session - Run an entire GNOME session under valgrind
Last modified: 2008-04-24 23:24:06 EDT
Spec URL: https://testing.108.redhat.com/source/browse/*checkout*/testing/trunk/incubator/gnome-valgrind-session/gnome-valgrind-session.spec?rev=292 SRPM URL: https://testing.108.redhat.com/files/documents/78/162/gnome-valgrind-session-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: This package adds two options to gdm's Session menu to run an entire GNOME session under valgrind, and gather the results to report files in your home directory names valgrind-session.0, valgrind-session.1, etc. The two sessions filter the output, checking either for errors, or for memory leaks.
1.0-2: Reworded the description: https://testing.108.redhat.com/source/browse/testing/trunk/incubator/gnome-valgrind-session/gnome-valgrind-session.spec?rev=293&view=markup
Dave, I put the tarball you asked for at http://hp.cl.no/proj/gnome-valgrind-session/src/
Update SPEC file for working Source tarball link. Tarball contains backup copy of gnome-valgrind-errors-postprocess as gnome-valgrind-errors-postprocess~. That should be removed. However it will be good to have License copy included in tarball. Can you update new SRPM with above changes? Then i will do review of this package.
You should always give updated SPEC and SRPM links. I saw that you updates SPEC in comment 2 but where is its SRPM? Now you should submit gnome-valgrind-session-1.0-3.src.rpm and its spec.
ping
I've put up a new tarball at http://hp.cl.no/proj/gnome-valgrind-session/src/. It does not contain any backup files, and I added a LICENSE file and individual license headers to the scripts. The new version is 1.1. I'll leave the FC packaging fixes to Dave, if he's got the time.
Thanks hpj. I'm doomed timewise until early January, I hope to pick this up again then.
I saw tarball Is single line in LICENSE file, acceptable? "This package is in the Public Domain."
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what the exact requirements are to release something into the public domain. I would assume that it's sufficient if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that I said it is.
Better to discuss this then on Fedora-extras mailing list.
Any updates here or is this review DEAD?
Sure looks dead to me.
Reopening. Here are some new packages: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/gnome-valgrind-session/
Wrt to the license question, "Public Domain" is a valid license according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
Ping? Matthias, if you want to "re-open" this review I think you need to submit a fresh review and mark this as duplicate of that one.
Matthias, you should at least be CC'd on this ticket if you're going to push it forward. Otherwise I don't see how you would notice the commentary.
I wasn't successful in getting anyone who is Gnome-savvy to look at this, so I'll just ask: is anyone still interested in this package? I will review it if someone still wants to submit it.
I am interested in submitting this, but it will be almost 7 days before I submit this. Freshening up the anjuta and gnome-build packages will keep me pre-occupied till then. If someone wants to take it up before that, feel free.
Well, it's been far longer than seven days. Still interested? Otherwise I guess I'll close this again.
Oops. It slipped my mind. I am still interested. Will file a new bug and close this one as a duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 444113 ***