Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 281281
Review Request: netpipe - A network performance measurement tool
Last modified: 2008-01-15 16:29:25 EST
Spec URL: http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/netpipe.spec
SRPM URL: http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/netpipe-3.7.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
NetPIPE is a protocol independent performance tool that visually
represents the network performance under a variety of conditions.x
It performs simple ping-pong tests, bouncing messages of increasing size
between two processes, whether across a network or within an SMP system.
Message sizes are chosen at regular intervals, and with slight perturbations,
to provide a complete test of the communication system.
Each data point involves many ping-pong tests to provide an accurate timing.
Latencies are calculated by dividing the round trip time
in half for small messages ( < 64 Bytes ).
- naming: ok (debian also uses a lowercase name)
- rpmlint: ok (silent)
- source: ok
- BuildRoot: ok
- Package compiles in koji for all supported archs
- License: NEEDSWORK
You use GPLv2+, but I cannot find any information on the version of the
license, the header in some source files only mention GPL, but no version and so
does README. Also no license text is included.
These files do not contain any license header, but some contain an author:
Would you please ask upstream to update the license header (and the manpage and
README) to a specific GPL Version, add a license header to the mentioned files
and include the license text in the tarball?
(In reply to comment #1)
> Would you please ask upstream to update the license header (and the manpage and
> README) to a specific GPL Version,
Upstream does not have to change the license to version specific.
If no specific version is provided, the license is simply GPL+
(GPL any version).
Thanks Mamoru and Till.
I've changed the license tag to GPL+
New version here: http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/netpipe-3.7.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
Till, do you want to have another look?
Sorry for not answering earlier: Did you ask upstream about a license header for
I wasn't aware that each file needed a license header, but I'll ask upstream to include those (and a
separate LICENSE file).
Hmm, upstream seems to be less active than I thought.
I haven't received a reply from them, nor could I subscribe to the mailing list.
Getting this package in Fedora is probably not a good idea, so I'll close the ticket.
Thanks for the effort Till.