Bug 772406 - Review Request: cpulimit - CPU Usage Limiter for Linux
Review Request: cpulimit - CPU Usage Limiter for Linux
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
unspecified Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Thomas Spura
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
: cpulimit (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-01-07 14:32 EST by Christos Triantafyllidis
Modified: 2014-07-22 08:15 EDT (History)
11 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-05-05 19:27:04 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tomspur: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-01-07 14:32:06 EST
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/ctria/cpulimit-spec/master/cpulimit.spec
EL5 SRPM URL: https://github.com/ctria/cpulimit-spec/raw/master/cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm
EL6 SRPM URL: https://github.com/ctria/cpulimit-spec/raw/master/cpulimit-1.1-1.el6.src.rpm
Fedora 16 SRPM URL: https://github.com/ctria/cpulimit-spec/raw/master/cpulimit-1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
Fedora 17 SRPM URL: https://github.com/ctria/cpulimit-spec/raw/master/cpulimit-1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm

Description: cpulimit is a simple program which attempts to limit the CPU usage of a process
(expressed in percentage, not in CPU time). This is useful to control batch
jobs, when you don't want them to eat too much CPU. It does not act on the nice
value or other scheduling priority stuff, but on the real CPU usage. Also, it
is able to adapt itself to the overall system load, dynamically and quickly.

Scratch builds at Fedora's koji:
Fedora 17 (rawhide):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3627881
Fedora 16:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3627890
EPEL 6:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3627893
EPEL 5:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3627924
Comment 1 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-01-07 14:37:45 EST
I see that i'm not the first who tries to package cpulimit for Fedora/EPEL, this looks like the 3rd attempt. I hope that the package is not cursed :).

$ rpmlint cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm cpulimit-1.1-1.el6.src.rpm cpulimit-1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm cpulimit-1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm cpulimit.spec
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Christos
Comment 2 Volker Fröhlich 2012-01-08 07:11:40 EST
Use Fedora's optflags when compiling. You can gather some inspiration from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513541

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Compiler_flags

Please use the %{_bindir} macro instead of "/usr/bin" and the name macro for "cpulimit". Also use it in Source0.

Defattr is obsolete.

If you don't go for EPEL 5, remove the buildroot definition, the clean section and the rm in the install section.
Comment 3 Adrien Devresse 2012-01-08 09:30:27 EST
Informal package Review, I am not a sponsor.



[FAIL] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

cpulimit.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-1 ['1.1-1.el5.centos', '1.1-1.centos']
cpulimit.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cpulimit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources

no-documentation -> no man pages or documentation files
incoherent-version-in-changelog -> need to be set properly
cpulimit-debuginfo -> compiled without -g flag

[PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[PASS] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

	-> Usage of 	%{optflags} for compilation flags if possible
	-> No debuginfo because of no -g opts
	-> why several src rpm ?

[PASS] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[PASS] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
[PASS] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[PASS] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 
[PASS] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
[PASS] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.

	-> rpmdev-md5 cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm
		00d6d2fabdcb2ecfa2355724e9dc3f4b  cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm
		f4ff6d4bfaef1258e8f5cd2041e2e2a3  cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz
		e5a087539a57670534d019f92f19e119  cpulimit.spec
	-> md5sum cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz 
		f4ff6d4bfaef1258e8f5cd2041e2e2a3  cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz
	-> md5sum cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz specs/cpulimit.spec 
		e5a087539a57670534d019f92f19e119  specs/cpulimit.spec


[PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 
[PASS] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. 
[PASS] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[PASS] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[PASS] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
[PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[PASS] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. 
[PASS] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. 
[PASS] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[PASS] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. 
[FAIL] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 

	-> /usr/bin paths can be replaced by %{_bindir} macro
	
[PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
[PASS] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 
[PASS] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. 
[PASS] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
[PASS] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
[PASS] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. 
[PASS] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} 
[PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[PASS] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. 
[PASS] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
[PASS] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 


[FAIL] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 

	-> add license file in the package
	
[PASS] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[PASS] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
	f15-candidate x86_64 -> success
	f15-candidate i386 -> success	
	
[PASS] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[PASS] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
[PASS] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. 
[PASS] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. 
[PASS] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. 
[FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

	-> lack of documentation files ( man pages )
Comment 4 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-01-08 09:42:42 EST
Thanks for the comments Volker!

    EPEL 5 is a target for this RPM (actually this is the main use for me). 

    Minor comment, defattr comes with default f14 (i know i'm a bit obsolete there) vim template, i removed it.

     New .spec and SRPMs updated. Scratch builds:
Fedora 17 (rawhide):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3629981
Fedora 16:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3629990
EPEL 6:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3629993
EPEL 5:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3629999

Christos
Comment 5 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-01-08 09:56:15 EST
Many thanks adev for the informal review!!


(In reply to comment #3)
> Informal package Review, I am not a sponsor.
> 
> 
> 
> [FAIL] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
> build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
> 
> cpulimit.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-1 ['1.1-1.el5.centos',
> '1.1-1.centos']
> cpulimit.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> cpulimit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
> 
> no-documentation -> no man pages or documentation files

No man page from UPSTREAM, there is a bug report with a man page for too long but never included. I decided not to put it on my self based on:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513541

> incoherent-version-in-changelog -> need to be set properly

I guess i miss a %{dist} there... is it required? changelog (at least to this point) is not dist specific. Rpmlint on rawhide binaries doesn't through this as an error. (trivial to fix if needed)

> cpulimit-debuginfo -> compiled without -g flag

Fixed in meanwhile :).

> 
> [PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
> Guidelines .
> [PASS] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> [FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
> 
>  -> Usage of  %{optflags} for compilation flags if possible
Fixed

>  -> No debuginfo because of no -g opts
Fixed

>  -> why several src rpm ?
One per dist, this is required i think.

> 
> [PASS] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
> meet the Licensing Guidelines .
> [PASS] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license. 
> [PASS] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
> license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
> license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
> [PASS] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 
> [PASS] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
> [PASS] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
> source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
> If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
> Guidelines for how to deal with this.
> 
>  -> rpmdev-md5 cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm
>   00d6d2fabdcb2ecfa2355724e9dc3f4b  cpulimit-1.1-1.el5.src.rpm
>   f4ff6d4bfaef1258e8f5cd2041e2e2a3  cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz
>   e5a087539a57670534d019f92f19e119  cpulimit.spec
>  -> md5sum cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz 
>   f4ff6d4bfaef1258e8f5cd2041e2e2a3  cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz
>  -> md5sum cpulimit-1.1.tar.gz specs/cpulimit.spec 
>   e5a087539a57670534d019f92f19e119  specs/cpulimit.spec
> 
> 
> [PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
> on at least one primary architecture. 
> [PASS] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
> architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
> ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
> bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
> that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
> corresponding ExcludeArch line. 
> [PASS] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
> any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
> inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
> [PASS] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
> the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
> [PASS] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
> library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
> must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
> [PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
> [PASS] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
> state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
> relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
> considered a blocker. 
> [PASS] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
> create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
> create that directory. 
> [PASS] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
> file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
> situations)
> [PASS] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
> set with executable permissions, for example. 
> [FAIL] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 
> 
>  -> /usr/bin paths can be replaced by %{_bindir} macro

Fixed

> 
> [PASS] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
> [PASS] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
> definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
> restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 
> [PASS] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
> runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
> run properly if it is not present. 
> [PASS] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
> [PASS] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
> [PASS] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
> libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
> a -devel package. 
> [PASS] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
> base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
> %{version}-%{release} 
> [PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
> removed in the spec if they are built.
> [PASS] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
> %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
> desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged
> GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
> spec file with your explanation. 
> [PASS] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
> should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
> means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
> any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
> feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
> package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
> [PASS] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 
> 
> 
> [FAIL] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 
> 
>  -> add license file in the package

I could ping upstream to add a license file but i don't think this will be done soon based on reactions of the upstream to other reports. Is this a blocker?

> 
> [PASS] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
> should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
> [PASS] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
> SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
> architectures.
>  f15-candidate x86_64 -> success
>  f15-candidate i386 -> success 
> 
> [PASS] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
> described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
> [PASS] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
> vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
> [PASS] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency. 
> [PASS] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
> and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
> pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
> installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. 
> [PASS] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
> /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
> file instead of the file itself. 
> [FAIL] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
> it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
> 
>  -> lack of documentation files ( man pages )

See comment above. A man page (created for debian shake) has been submitted as bug to UPSTREAM but was never included. I fully agree with comments on about possible inaccuracies and deprecation in future thus i'd prefer not to add one:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513541

If this is a blocker i could add it though :(.

Many many thanks for the review.

Christos
Comment 6 Thomas Spura 2012-01-11 17:02:41 EST
*** Bug 513541 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 Thomas Spura 2012-03-25 04:46:51 EDT
I'll have a look soon.
Comment 8 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-03-25 18:40:48 EDT
Thanks Thomas!

I'm looking forward your comments.

Christos
Comment 9 Thomas Spura 2012-03-31 16:16:27 EDT
- name ok
- License ok
- $ rpmlint /home/tom/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cpulimit-1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm /home/tom/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cpulimit-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm /home/tom/rpmbuild/SRPMS/cpulimit-1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
cpulimit.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cpulimit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cpulimit
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Ignorable

- macros everywhere
- no libs
- no *.la
- URL ok (there is another one in the headers, but that is offline)

NEEDSWORK:
- group: Text? I think "Development/Tools" would fit better.
- There is no %doc, so you don't need to write %doc here.
- Could you please query upstream to include a COPYING license text?
- look throught patches: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=174425&atid=869186
  -> maybe use a svn checkout instead http://cpulimit.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpulimit/trunk/
  http://cpulimit.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpulimit/trunk/README?revision=41&view=markup
  * segfaults fixed and other bugfixes there

  It looks like there is a 1.2 version available, when you pull from svn
  (e.g. have a look at fedora-getsvn)

(In reply to comment #5)
> > [FAIL] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 
> > 
> >  -> add license file in the package
> 
> I could ping upstream to add a license file but i don't think this will be done
> soon based on reactions of the upstream to other reports. Is this a blocker?

It's a blocker to not query upstream and ask for one ;)

Considering the sigsegv patch and nonresponsiveness of upsteam, it would be great, when you could mail him (it seems he doesn't care much about patches/questions submitted on sourceforce) and ask for the LICENSE file/what fixes are really needed/if patches are sane to apply.

When upstream is not available anymore, be aware that you should fix all bugs in it, if possible... :(

Other than that:
- Your spec files look fine.
- Your comments in other review requests were fine.
--> Ready for sponsorship, when the last pieces are cleared from above :)
Comment 10 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-04-07 10:14:06 EDT
Hi Thomas,
  thanks for your comments. I've contacted the vendor via direct mail couple of days ago and wait his reply. I'm not sure if packing the SVN version is good idea. From the use so far i did with 1.1 version on SL5 i didn't see any sigsegv (yet).

  A question regarding grouping, i don't see this as development tool, i actually use it on the administrating side thus the current group, do insist on changing it? Is there any guide on what fits where that i should check?

Christos
Comment 11 Thomas Spura 2012-04-07 14:43:43 EDT
(In reply to comment #10)
>   thanks for your comments. I've contacted the vendor via direct mail couple of
> days ago and wait his reply. I'm not sure if packing the SVN version is good
> idea. From the use so far i did with 1.1 version on SL5 i didn't see any
> sigsegv (yet).

Sometimes it's needed, but as you are seemingly using it quite a lot, using 1.1 might be fine too... Lets wait a bit for an answer, till we simply move along...

>   A question regarding grouping, i don't see this as development tool, i
> actually use it on the administrating side thus the current group, do insist on
> changing it? Is there any guide on what fits where that i should check?

I know no guide so far. Just pick a reasonable one from /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS.
Hmm, and you are using it there to limit the cpuusage of vi? Or why the "/Text".
e.g. "Applications/System" makes more sense for me, when you think Devel/Tools is wrong...

More other examples at:
$ repoquery --qf '%{group} %{name}' -a | sort | grep "Applications/System"
Comment 12 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-04-08 12:10:51 EDT
For some unknown reason i interpreted Application/Text as CLI applications :(. 

Applications/System seems more reasonable.

I'll wait for vendor's reply and i'll update the .spec accordingly. Hopefully we will have a reply soon...

Christos
Comment 13 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-04-12 14:31:14 EDT
Still now reply from vendor. Pinged him again.

Christos
Comment 14 Thomas Spura 2012-04-16 16:39:07 EDT
I really hope, that upstream is not completely dead, just response quite slow...
Let's continue this now.

This package is:

#########################################################

APPROVED

#########################################################

Welcome to the packager group.

Next steps are:
* asking for the git repository and
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages

* importing the package and ship updates
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors
Comment 15 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-04-16 17:29:36 EDT
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: cpulimit
Short Description: CPU Usage Limiter for Linux
Owners: ctria
Branches: f16 f17 el5 el6
InitialCC:
Comment 16 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-04-16 21:50:06 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 17 Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-05-05 19:27:04 EDT
This has reached stable repositories but i hadn't linked the ticket in the update request.

Closing it manually.
Comment 18 Christos Triantafyllidis 2014-07-21 18:38:53 EDT
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: cpulimit
New Branches: epel7
Owners: ctria
Comment 19 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-07-22 08:15:27 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).

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